PA State Historic Preservation Office Guidelines for ......PA SHPO Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania The activity that is the subject of this document has

PA State Historic Preservation Office

(PA SHPO)

Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations

in Pennsylvania

Revised November 2017

Commonwealth Keystone Building | 400 North Street | 2nd Floor | Harrisburg, PA 17120 | 717.783.8947

PA SHPO Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania

The activity that is the subject of this document has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior.

This program receives Federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to:

Office of Equal Opportunity National Park Service 1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

Page 2 of 63 Revised November 2017


TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 6

Philosophy and Purpose.............................................................................................................. 6

Overview of the Archaeological Consultation Process ................................................................. 7

PHASE I: Site Identification ............................................................................................................ 9

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 9

Site Visit....................................................................................................................................... 9

Background Research ............................................................................................................... 10

Probability Assessment ......................................................................................................... 13

Informant Interviews ............................................................................................................. 14

Documenting Disturbance through Background Research ................................................... 14

Field Testing ............................................................................................................................. 14

Methods................................................................................................................................. 14

Geomorphology .................................................................................................................... 17

Documentation of Disturbance Through Field Testing ........................................................ 18

Remote Sensing .................................................................................................................... 19

Monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 21

Preservation in Place............................................................................................................. 21

Statewide Pre-Contact Predictive Model Testing ................................................................. 21

Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 22

Artifacts................................................................................................................................. 22

Phase I Site Identification and Boundary Definition ............................................................ 22

Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Comparison and Testing Results ....................... 23

Reporting ................................................................................................................................... 24

Avoidance Plan ..................................................................................................................... 24

PHASE II: Site Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 26

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 26

PA SHPO Opinion on Eligibility ............................................................................................... 27

Context Development for National Register Eligibility .............................................................. 27

Context and Research Questions .......................................................................................... 28

Additional Documentary Research ....................................................................................... 28



................................................................................................................................................... 29

Field Methods ........................................................................................................................... 30

Unstratified Sites................................................................................................................... 31

Stratified Sites....................................................................................................................... 32

Feature Excavation................................................................................................................ 33

Analysis...................................................................................................................................... 34

Artifacts................................................................................................................................. 34

Dating of Site Components ................................................................................................... 35

Botanical and Faunal Analysis.............................................................................................. 36

Phase II Site Boundary Definition ........................................................................................ 36

PHASE III: Mitigation of Adverse Effects..................................................................................... 38

Agreement Documents .............................................................................................................. 38

Mitigation Activities ................................................................................................................... 38

Data Recovery....................................................................................................................... 39

Alternative Mitigation........................................................................................................... 39

REPORTING ............................................................................................................................... 41

Reporting Options ..................................................................................................................... 41

Phase I Reporting.................................................................................................................. 41

Phase II and Phase III Reporting .......................................................................................... 41

Addendum Reports ............................................................................................................... 41

SHPO Report and Form Submission Procedures ....................................................................... 42

Standard Report Format ............................................................................................................ 43

GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................. 47

Appendix A: Anatomy of an ER Number ...................................................................................... 50

Appendix B: County Codes and PASS County Abbreviations ........................................................ 51

Appendix C: PASS Numbers and Site Identification Criteria.......................................................... 53

................................................................................................................................................... 53 Recording Archaeological sites in The Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey files (PASS)

What Does a PASS Site Number Look Like? ...................................................................... 53

How to Record Other Types of Resources ........................................................................... 53

Obtaining Numbers from the SHPO ..................................................................................... 54

Appendix D: Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey Files Site Identification Criteria ........... 55



Drawing Boundaries ................................................................................................................. 55

Pre-Contact Sites....................................................................................................................... 56

Minimum Standards .............................................................................................................. 56

Historic Sites............................................................................................................................. 56

Minimum Standards .............................................................................................................. 57

Appendix E: Policy on Human Remains ........................................................................................ 58

Appendix F: UPDATED and NEW Forms ................................................................................... 61

Appendix G: CRGIS Geospatial Submission Standards ................................................................. 62

Formats ..................................................................................................................................... 62

File Organization by Resource Type ........................................................................................ 62

Survey Area .......................................................................................................................... 62

Above Ground Resources ..................................................................................................... 62

Below Ground Resources ..................................................................................................... 63

Other Data Types ...................................................................................................................... 63



INTRODUCTION

Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania discusses how to conduct archaeological investigations in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These are the guidelines by which the State Historic Preservation Office in Pennsylvania (PA SHPO) reviews and comments on archaeological survey and excavation conducted as part of the environmental review process for state and federal undertakings. This manual is not intended to comment on any other part of the environmental review process. Information concerning the review process is available at: http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Project-Review.

The Guidelines are organized by traditional archaeological phases, with helpful references, including a glossary and appendices at the end of the document. The Table of Contents is linked to the many sections in the Guidelines for easier navigation; simply put your mouse over the section in the Table of Contents chart, hold down the control button, and click with the mouse. Words contained in this glossary are indicated throughout the text as underlined blue words, hyperlinked to the glossary. Items of special note, such as particular types of sites, are called out in highlighted text boxes as a reminder. For online viewers, links throughout the report will deliver you to the appropriate website.

PhilosophyandPurpose

Federal and state laws recognize the importance of cultural resources, including archaeological sites, and provide mechanisms to ensure that they are considered in the actions of government agencies. The federal legal mandates under which consideration of cultural resources most commonly take place include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, Executive Order 11593, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s implementing regulations for Section 106 (36 CFR 800). In Pennsylvania, state legal mandates include the Environmental Rights Amendment, Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Pennsylvania History Code, 37 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 500 et. seq.

The NHPA defines the role of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as providing comment and expert advice. In Pennsylvania, the SHPO is the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC). Upon notification of an undertaking by an agency or their delegated representative, the PA SHPO reviews the action and provides comments to the agency regarding the presence of resources and the need for studies to locate or evaluate resources. For archaeological sites, recommended studies may include identification survey, testing to evaluate significance, and data recovery excavations or other mitigation. It is important to note that, under state law, the PA SHPO has authority to request archaeological investigations on lands owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The following guidelines are published by the PA SHPO as per Section 101(b)(3) (E and G) of the NHPA which requires the State Historic Preservation Officer, among other things, to “advise and assist, as appropriate, Federal and State agencies and local governments in carrying out their historic preservation responsibilities” as well as to “provide…technical assistance in historic preservation.”


http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Project-Review


In this spirit, the guidelines are those under which the PA SHPO reviews and evaluates archaeological survey reports and their recommendations. These guidelines are intended to ensure consistency in survey methodology, analysis, report writing, evaluations of significance, and comparability of data. To this end, a phased approach to resource identification and evaluation is outlined. The phases correspond to the required tasks of identification and inventory (Phase I), evaluation (Phase II), and mitigation through data recovery or alternative mitigation (Phase III).

The PA SHPO encourages the use of new or modified approaches not specified in these guidelines as long as these approaches are discussed with PA SHPO staff before the studies are initiated. Alternative approaches should be justified by reference to relevant literature on archaeological methodology and/or by reference to previous successful studies. In addition, the methods should provide results equivalent to or better than those provided by the standard methods.

Overview of the Archaeological Consultation Process

This section of the Guidelines is intended as a brief overview for the non-archaeologist of how a typical project may progress with regards to review under Section 106 and the State History Code for archaeological resources. It should be noted that each project is unique and additional steps may need to be undertaken depending on the findings from each level of investigation. In addition, separate investigation and evaluation of above ground historic resources may be needed. See the Guidelines for Architectural Investigations for additional information.

As noted above, consultation with the PA SHPO is required under Section 106 for projects needing federal funding, permitting, licensing or other approvals and for projects undertaken by federal agencies and/or on federal property. Consultation may be required under the State History Code for projects receiving state funding or state permits, projects on state land, and for the actions of state agencies or instrumentalities of the state.

It is important to identify the role of the PA SHPO with regards to the Section 106 process. The PA SHPO is a by-right consulting party that provides comment(s) at each step of the consultation process, at the request of and directly to the federal agency. The Section 106 implementing regulations identify the federal agency undertaking the project as the lead agency in all Section 106 consultation. Some federal agencies have procedures in place to guide their projects through the consultation process. For these agencies, the process of consultation follows the implementing regulations closely. The Section 106 implementing regulations can be found here. Other federal agencies rely primarily on the SHPO to guide consultation and provide their comments on impacts to cultural resources to a delegate. Delegates are generally permit or grant applicants. For these projects, federal agencies may not become directly involved in the consultation process until adverse effects on cultural resources are identified. When undertaking a project that will require Section 106 consultation, it is important to contact the responsible federal agency prior to the start of the consultation process to gain an understanding of that specific agency’s procedures.

Of note, the PA SHPO Environmental Review staff is divided into review regions. Each region has an assigned archaeologist and above ground review team. Review regions are divided by county, and



team maps are available on our website at www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Project-Review/Pages/Contact-Information.

If a Phase I archaeological survey is requested, the project applicant will typically contract with an archaeological consultant meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology to conduct the archaeological investigation. The PA SHPO maintains a list of consulting companies who may have staff meeting these requirements.

Once contracted, the archaeological consultant should follow these Guidelines. It should be noted that the responsibility for findings of effects on cultural resources is the responsibility of the permitting or funding state or federal agency. As noted above, the consultant or project applicant should be in contact with the federal/state regulatory agency to ensure the work completed meets the rules and regulations of that agency. The results of the Phase I Survey should be provided to the PA SHPO, the regulatory agency (if requested), and any Native American Tribes that a federal agency has identified as consulting parties in the Section 106 process. The PA SHPO has 30 days from receipt of the document to review and comment. If documentation of the work completed meets the Guidelines, and no archaeological sites are identified or all identified sites will be avoided, it will be the opinion of the SHPO that archaeological consultation for the project is complete. If complete documentation is provided and archaeological sites have been identified, the PA SHPO will either issue an opinion on site eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or request additional (Phase II level) archaeological investigation to determine eligibility.

If National Register evaluation is requested by the PA SHPO, project applicants should obtain a Phase II work plan from their archaeological consultant and contact the regional review archaeologist to discuss the proposed work plan. Evaluation should proceed once the work plan has been developed and approved by all appropriate parties. Results of the Phase II work should be provided to the PA SHPO, the responsible regulatory agency and any other consulting parties for review and comment. The PA SHPO has 30 days from receipt of the document to review and comment. If complete documentation is provided, the PA SHPO will issue an opinion on site eligibility. If all identified sites will be avoided or are not eligible for the NRHP, it will be the opinion of the PA SHPO that archaeological consultation for the project is complete.

If it is the PA SHPO’s opinion that one or more archaeological sites are eligible for the NRHP the PA SHPO will recommend that impacts to these sites be avoided. If avoidance is not possible, it will be necessary to identify mitigation measures for the loss of the resource and prepare and execute a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (see Phase III Guidelines). It is essential to have the full participation of the regulatory state or federal agency for the development of the MOA, as that agency must be a signatory to the MOA. It may be necessary for that agency to seek additional consulting parties or to conduct additional consultation with Native American Tribes. Once the MOA is executed and the agreed upon mitigation and public outreach stipulations have been met, it will be the opinion of the PA SHPO that archaeological consultation for the project is complete.


www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Project


PHASE I: Site Identification

Introduction

Phase I identification surveys are intended to find archaeological resources within a project area as per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Identification and 36 CFR 800.4. Predictive modeling is used by the PA SHPO to delineate areas warranting Phase I survey (see below) and should be used by consultants to focus archaeological field work. The methodology of a Phase I survey should be adequate to make it probable that all potentially eligible sites will be recorded. This includes the discovery of unrecorded sites and the confirmation of previously recorded sites.

The Phase I guidelines are broadly divided into five sequential tasks: site visit, background research, field testing, analysis, and reporting. Many aspects of these tasks are common to any Phase I investigation; however, different site situations (pre-contact, historic, urban/industrial, and submerged) each have specific needs based on the different resources involved and the physical contexts in which they may be found. Description of these tasks is presented below including specific procedural recommendations by site type.

Site Visit

The initial site visit should be conducted prior to development of the testing strategy as it will provide information not otherwise obtainable through maps and documentary research. The results of the site visit should be combined with background documentary research to develop the probability assessment for the project area as well as the Phase I testing methodology.

The site visit should include consideration of local topography and environmental factors that have affected the formation and preservation of archaeological sites. Some of this information is available from topographic, soils, and geological maps and aerial photographs; however, there is no substitute for a detailed field examination of the local conditions. The extent of level areas and minor topographic features (slight rises, depressions, slopes), modern vegetation patterns, the extent of alluvial and colluvial deposition and erosion, and the presence of other significant environmental features (rock outcrops, mounds, springs, wetlands, stream confluences, etc.) should all be noted in the site visit. Cairns and cairn fields may be found in areas of excessive slope and should be documented.

In certain circumstances, a geomorphological reconnaissance (see below) should be conducted during the initial site visit to inform Phase I field methodology and determine whether deep testing is necessary to identify buried archaeological resources. Typically, a geomorphological survey is necessary in settings with the potential for alluvial deposition; however, geomorphology should also be considered in upland areas where colluvial or aeolian deposits could be present. The methodology for geomorphological testing should be determined in consultation with a



geomorphologist or qualified soil scientist. In general, the study should be sufficient to fully characterize all landforms within the project area.

Note: Specific to Submerged Sites An initial site visit, when practical, should note the presence or absence of maritime architecture or features such as pilings, docks, customhouses, warehouses, or shipyards. Such structures and features help to place any submerged near shore resources within their proper historical context. They also help to guide the search for underwater sites and aid in delineating site boundaries. For projects farther away from shore or where depth is a concern, a site visit may not be useful or practical.

Note: Specific to Urban Sites For projects in urban areas a site visit and subsurface testing is necessary to determine the presence of archaeological remains below the built environment. In these locations, visual evidence for archaeological deposits is usually non-existent, especially in areas like a parking lot, a rail yard, or an existing highway. In such cases, a geomorphological assessment utilizing mechanical backhoe “soundings” can be used to determine the presence of intact cultural horizons and/or archaeological deposits below zones of more recent disturbance. The evaluation of disturbance should be based on the sampling of the entire lot, the depth of the buried deposits, and the documented expectation of ancillary structures or middens in portions of the lot that may not be covered by current structures.

Note: Specific to Historic Sites The site visit should document indicators of historic site formation and preservation. It is important to note that not all historic sites are recorded on historic maps. Above-ground structures, features, or ruins should be photographed. Less obvious indicators of buried historic sites should be documented including surface or near surface artifact concentrations and topographic or vegetational anomalies such as differential vegetation, crop marks and soil depressions, which may represent the locations of buried foundation remains, wells, and privies. Non-native vegetation, especially when clustered, can often denote an historic domestic site.

BackgroundResearch

Background research is an essential precondition for effective fieldwork and, in concert with the results of the site visit, will facilitate the development of informed expectations for where archaeological sites are likely to be identified within the project area (probability assessment) and will inform and guide the Phase I testing methodology. Further, the collected information will serve to provide the foundation for placing any identified archaeological sites within their local and regional contexts.

Phase I level background research should include, at a minimum, examination of the following:



1) Pre-contact culture histories. (These histories should be based on current, up-to-date research.)

2) Historic settlement history, including historic mapping and photographs 3) Cultural Resource Management (CRM) reports of investigations 4) Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) Files 5) Academic archaeological reports 6) Aerial photography 7) Environmental Data such as soils, hydrology, flora/fauna, climate, landform, and

geology.

The information gathered from these sources should focus only on aspects relevant to the specific project area under consideration in the Phase I survey. Information on these topics can be found at locations such as the PA SHPO archive, the State Archives, the State Library and local libraries, historical society archives, academic research libraries, and through online resources such as the CRGIS. The information gathered through background research should be presented in the Background section of the Phase I Survey Report.

Regardless of the project size, archaeologists are expected to consider all relevant archaeological, historical, and environmental data. The exact geographical area from which background information should be drawn will vary according to the availability of comparative data. The geographical extent the background information is drawn from should be large enough to provide at least a minimal comparative data set. For pre-contact sites we recommend, at a minimum, consideration of the watershed/drainage area of the project.

Additional primary documents may need to be consulted at the Phase I level for projects in urban areas. These include:

1) Deeds 2) Tax assessments 3) Insurance surveys 4) Census data 5) Road dockets 6) City directories 7) Maps of buried utilities 8) Insurance and Atlas Maps



Note: Specific to Urban Sites Adequate documentary research is an important factor in the identification of urban archaeological sites and should be performed as early in the project planning phase as possible. In addition to the background research detailed above, research on urban archaeological sites should also gather information on the development of the project area over time, from its pre-urban character through the various periods of urban use. This should include a consideration of the emergence and the effect of municipal infrastructure such as water, sewer, and trash disposal in the project area as well as an assessment of the possibility that earlier periods of construction have destroyed or significantly disturbed pre-existing archaeological sites or features.

Additional primary documents may need to be consulted at the Phase I level for projects in submerged areas. These include:

1) Deeds 2) Tax assessments 3) Insurance surveys 4) Navigation charts 5) Naval records 6) Admiralty records 7) Ships' manifests 8) Interviews with local watermen, the family members or descendants of watermen, and

the local diving community may also prove to be valuable.

Note: Specific to Submerged Sites As with Urban archaeological sites, documentary research is by far the single most important technique in the identification of underwater archaeological sites or resources. For this reason, and because it is both time and cost-efficient, documentary research should be performed as early in the project planning phase as possible. At a minimum, this research should consider the following:

1) A consideration of the pre-contact environment, focusing on pre-contact and early historic (contact or post-contact) shore/bank use and previous shore/bank lines.

2) A reconstruction of the development of the project area over time, from early pre-contact times to the twentieth century. For example, the effects of levee construction, dam construction, and dredging should be considered.

3) A discussion of the effects of maritime, riverine, and lacustrine development on the project area. In particular, the possibility that earlier construction destroyed or has significantly altered pre-existing archaeological sites or features through dredging, harbor expansion, pier/dock construction, etc. should be considered.



Note: Specific to Military Sites In addition to the background research detailed above, research specific to military activities within the project area should be conducted when the project area may be the location of a military site. Information on the larger military campaign placing the battle or encampment in its local, regional, and national context should also be undertaken. At a minimum, additional documentary research should include an examination of the following resources when available:

1) General military histories and battlefield guides; 2) Military atlases, photographs, and studies of specific campaigns or battles; 3) Biographies, diaries, or individual records of participants; 4) Official government military records.

In addition to consulting the materials listed above, it is imperative that the archeologist consider the landscape of the battlefield from a strategic military perspective. In other words, the archaeologist should approach the terrain the way a military commander would, using KOCOA military terrain analysis. KOCOA stand for Key/decisive terrain, Observation and field of fire, Cover and concealment, Obstacles, and Avenues of approach/withdrawal (refer to www.tpub.com/seabee/3-29.htm for more information).

Probability AssessmentAs noted above, the intensity, scope, and type of field testing will depend on the probability assessment for the different portions of the project area. The archaeological probability assessment for the entire project area should be developed by a qualified archaeologist and presented as part of the overall Background section of the Phase I report. This assessment will consider information gathered from the field view, such as previous disturbance, topography, and land use; information gathered from the Statewide Predictive Model (see below); and information gathered through the background research concerning historic and pre-contact site locations. The PA SHPO also strongly suggests that local informant interviews (see below) be conducted and the results be considered when assessing archaeological probability within a project area.

The assessment will result in sectioning the entire project area into segments with no potential for the presence of archaeological sites, low potential, moderate potential, and/ or high potential. Areas that are considered to have no archaeological potential within the project area should be excluded from further field testing. These areas would include, but not be limited to. areas that have been previously strip mined or areas within road or buried utility rights-of-way. Areas with low, moderate, and high potential for the presence of archaeological resources should be tested accordingly based on these Guidelines and the project area specific testing methodology. Mapping should be presented in the Background section of the report of investigations that illustrates archaeological potential, previous disturbance, and survey methodology for all portions of the project area.


www.tpub.com/seabee/3-29.htm


InformantInterviews As noted above, informant interviews are an important component for assessing archaeological probability within a project area and should be conducted. Informants can be land owners, local residents, members of the local Society for Pennsylvania Archaeology (SPA) chapter, local or county historical society members, members of federally recognized tribes, or anyone else who may be familiar with the project area and the locations of recorded and unrecorded archaeological and historic sites. Known archaeological site locations should be recorded from informant data when possible, and available artifact collections from the project area should be examined and documented. (Photographs, drawings of representative artifacts, summary statistics, etc. are all appropriate.) The names of all informants should be recorded.

DocumentingDisturbancethroughBackgroundResearchIt should be noted that, in some cases, the documentary research will indicate that potentially significant archaeological sites, features, or contexts were once present in the project area. However, it is often possible to use documentary research on previous land use to demonstrate that such sites, features, or contexts are no longer preserved. In cases where the documentary record is found to be sufficiently complete, and unambiguous in its demonstration of the destruction of cultural resources, a Record of Disturbance form supported by the appropriate documentation should be completed and provided to the PA SHPO for review. In cases where the background research is unclear concerning the preservation of archaeological sites, field testing will be necessary.

FieldTesting

Methods This methodology is a suggested minimum standard for undertaking Phase I archaeological survey. All methodologies should be derived from and justified by the background research and a site visit as described previously in this document. Alternative methods can be used in consultation with the PA SHPO. In developing sampling and testing strategies, keep in mind that the goal of Phase I field survey is to maximize the identification of archaeological sites in the project area. All sites, including small, low density sites, may be eligible for the National Register. Further, sites which contain significant paleo-environmental data contributing to our understanding of cultural adaptations may also be eligible and should be given consideration. Weather is an important factor in performing good quality field work and it is strongly recommended that archaeological testing not be conducted during extremely cold and/or wet conditions.

Survey should begin with a surface inspection or walkover of the area(s) slated for survey during the initial site visit and be followed by either controlled surface collection, shovel testing, and/or test unit excavation, depending on the conditions throughout the project area. As described elsewhere, a geomorphological reconnaissance is necessary in certain circumstances to determine whether deep testing is necessary. All excavated soils should be screened through at least ¼ inch hardware mesh and excavation (when appropriate) should extend to a depth at which no archaeological materials can be found or at which the vertical Area of Potential Affect (APE) has been investigated to the point where project impacts would not affect any deeper archaeological deposits, should they be present. In general, all observed artifacts should be collected during a Phase I survey; however, for



certain artifact types a sample can be collected (i.e. brick, window glass, plaster, etc.…). Consult with the SHPO regional reviewer before instituting a sampling strategy.

1) A controlled surface collection should be conducted in areas currently under cultivation or that had previously been cultivated. To maximize artifact visibility, the field should be re-plowed, disked, and rain washed. All artifacts should be point plotted or collected in 5 meter or smaller grid blocks.

2) Shovel testing should be undertaken when plowing is not feasible or in areas which have not previously been plowed. Shovel tests should be hand excavated either as 0.5 meter x 0.5 meter squares or 0.57-meter diameter circular pits and should not extend deeper than 1 meter. The standard shovel test interval should be 15 meters on a grid system or 16 per acre. Medium and low probability areas may be tested at wider intervals of 25 or 30 meters provided that the testing strategy can be justified. Locations for shovel tests in low probability areas may be judgmentally selected rather than using a standard interval pattern. All shovel tests should be excavated in natural stratigraphic levels. In plowed upland areas with no potential for deep burial, the shovel tests should extend at least 10 centimeters into the subsoil (typically a B or C horizon developed in or derived from the breakdown of weathered bedrock) below the base of the plowzone. The purpose is to confirm the natural state of the horizon (as opposed to fill) and to catch any artifacts that may have become relocated downward through bioturbation and vertical drift.

When archaeological resources are identified during shovel testing, additional shovel tests (radials) should be excavated in a cruciform pattern within the original testing grid to preliminarily define the site boundary. Radial testing should be undertaken at a 5-meter interval and the site boundary defined by two negative tests at this shortened interval.

3) Test unit excavation should be undertaken for areas in which the archaeologically sensitive soils extend deeper than 1 meter to a maximum OSHA-safe depth of 1.52 meters (5 feet) without shoring or other protection. Beyond OSHA-safe depth, the archaeologist can attempt to reach the base of cultural deposits by excavating a shovel test in the bottom of a 1x1 meter test unit or by stepping the test unit back to 2x2 meters or larger. Test units should be excavated on a 30-meter interval (four per acre). Soils should be excavated in 10 centimeter levels within natural strata. In very deep sites such as on major river floodplains, trench-box techniques can be used for safety purposes.

Deep testing should continue to a depth indicated by a geomorphologist as not likely to contain archaeological resources. Often this depth will correspond to a Pleistocene surface. Projects which have a confined impact and where the depth of impact is restricted may only necessitate testing to a depth of a meter below the depth of impact. Ground water problems should be discussed with the PA SHPO.



Note Specific to Pre-Contact Sites Stratified sites are of great importance in establishing and verifying regional and/or local chronologies, culture histories, and so forth. For this reason, a geomorphologist should be present on site at the beginning of a survey if there is a possibility that stratified cultural deposits may be present. The geomorphologist will be able to determine the depth of archaeologically sensitive soils and the depth to which testing should extend, based on soils.

Among the smallest archaeological resources are pre-contact isolated finds. These resources are potentially representative of larger concentrations of artifacts and may only be fully defined when tested at a very close interval. The purpose of such close interval radial testing is to provide adequate coverage and consideration of small sites of this type. For this reason, a 2.5-meter radial interval around isolated finds is recommended. Because the behavior represented by these sites will, by nature, leave little archaeological signature, intervals of 5 meters or more may miss much or all of what remains.

Note Specific to Historic Sites Standard Phase I field methods are sufficient to recover historic as well as pre-contact artifacts; however, in many instances the identification of an historic period site can be determined based on the presence of extant foundation ruins, surface depressions, or other historic period features at the surface. In these instances, the presence of a site can be established with little or no excavation and only a limited amount of testing may be necessary prior to the initiation of a Phase II investigation. Excavation of 1 by 1 meter test units or 50-centimeter-wide trenches may be appropriate if ground truthing of subsurface anomalies is deemed necessary. Remote sensing techniques should also be considered if burials or other subsurface features are likely, as in older church yards. Metal detector survey should always be used for sites on or in proximity to a battlefield. See Remote Sensing section below for additional details regarding metal detection survey.

Note: Specific to Submerged Sites The purpose of this type of survey is to locate shipwrecks and other maritime features and, in certain circumstances, submerged landforms with the potential for pre-contact sites that have been inundated and buried. Specific guidelines and requirements are outlined below:


Note Specific to Urban and Industrial Sites In urban and industrial settings, the most important factor for the preservation of resources is previous land use history. This means that, in some cases, background research should be conducted prior to any site visit. The background research should focus on land use history to identify what significant resources could be present in the project area. The site visit should focus on determining the field strategy necessary to recover those significant resources.

If the background research suggests that archaeological resources may be present in an urban setting, the Phase I archaeological testing plan may include a comprehensive geomorphological assessment of the project area. The purpose of the geomorphological investigation is to define the depths of disturbed and fill soils and to assess the potential for buried archaeological deposits underneath disturbed soils. This must include specific recommendations concerning the archaeological potential of the project area and how any areas of such potential will be investigated. This work plan should be sent to the PA SHPO for review and comment.


Note Specific to Submerged Sites (cont’d) Initial investigations should commence with a geophysical remote sensing survey. Collection, processing, and interpretation of the raw geophysical data must be overseen and completed by an experienced maritime archaeologist.

The PA SHPO considers qualifications to supervise this work as an equivalency of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology. This includes, at a minimum, an advanced degree in Anthropology, Archaeology, or a closely related field with a focus in underwater or maritime archaeology and with three years of professional experience in this discipline, including a year of supervision. If significant anomalies are located and cannot be avoided, identification and verification (diver ground-truthing) must be undertaken by trained underwater archaeologists and can include preliminary documentation, probing, limited removal of overburden and/or visual assessment using a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV).

Remote sensing surveys should include, but are not limited to, use of side-scan sonar, magnetometer or gradiometer, sub-bottom profiler, and recording fathometer. At least three different techniques should be employed. The use of these types of instrumentation provides acoustic imagery of surface and subsurface features and detects the presence of both exposed and buried ferrous metal objects. These methods are used to discover anomalies that may include historic artifacts, cultural features, and/or submerged landforms potentially associated with submerged pre-contact sites.

Transect spacing will vary depending on conditions, but should be no greater than 30 meters (100 feet) and should provide a minimum 100% overlap of survey lines for 200% coverage. Survey transects should be recorded with Differential GPS and the data presented in a GIS format. Both raw and processed data should be included in the Phase I report. Magnetometer and sonar data should be presented as a contour map and sonar mosaic printed to a scale not exceeding 800 feet per inch. Information should be presented in either large format or foldout maps.

For more information, please consult the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) guidelines for archaeological survey on the Outer Continental Shelf. While the BOEM guidelines are not directly applicable to the waters of Pennsylvania, they provide good guidance regarding the types of work to be undertaken and instrumentation specifications.

A report of the investigation and results is to be submitted to the PA SHPO for review upon conclusion of field activities. If additional testing is necessary, the activities should be developed in consultation with the Regional Review Archaeologist at the PA SHPO.

GeomorphologyGeomorphology is the study of how landforms are created; it identifies soils that are of the appropriate age to contain archaeological material. It looks at the history and composition of landforms by examining topography, sedimentary history, and soil characteristics and genesis. For



archaeological purposes, a geomorphological investigation is necessary for any project with the potential for archaeological material buried within and/or under alluvial, colluvial, or aeolian sediments. Alluvial soils can occur along watercourses of almost any size and colluvial soils are found along the bases of slopes. Some landforms, such as large alluvial fans, can contain both alluvial and colluvial sediments. Aeolian deposits are not common in Pennsylvania and are most likely to be found in the Coastal Plain and along parts of the Lake Erie Plain. Some probable aeolian deposits of Holocene age have also been found in localized areas of the main stem of the Susquehanna River. When any of these three types of soils are present, geomorphology will help determine the depth to which archaeological excavation should extend so that buried sites will be fully considered.

In urban and industrial brownfield settings, geomorphology can help determine whether intact soils containing early historic and/or pre-contact sites are present below historically disturbed soil levels. If intact soils are present, this type of study can determine the depth to which archaeological investigations should extend. In consultation with the PA SHPO, historically disturbed soils can be mechanically stripped off to help facilitate easier and safer archaeological excavation. Care should be taken when mechanically removing disturbed soils since historic archaeological sites can be present within historic fill deposits.

Geomorphological testing can include auger boring, back hoe trenching, observing cut banks, and observing the profiles of archaeological test units or shovel tests. In any case, testing should extend through Holocene and Late Pleistocene soils that have the potential to contain buried archaeological material.

Geomorphological reports can be submitted as separate stand-alone reports, as part of Phase IA reports, or as part of full Phase I, II or III reports, depending on the nature of the findings and the project.

Testing must be undertaken or, at the very least, supervised in the field, by qualified personnel. The PA SHPO considers qualifications to supervise this work, at a minimum, to include an advanced degree in geology and soil science with interdisciplinary study of anthropology and archaeology.

DocumentationofDisturbanceThroughFieldTestingDisturbance, or the loss of archeological integrity, in part or all of a project area should be documented as part of a Phase I investigation. This should include a discussion of the type of activity that has caused the disturbance and documentation of the horizontal and vertical limits of the disturbance. It should be demonstrated that no pre-contact or historic period cultural remains could be present below the level of disturbance. Previously documented disturbance, identified through background research, should always be confirmed through a field visit. Disturbance visible at the surface can generally be documented through photographic recordation. Aerial photographs of the project area may also prove to be helpful in this regard.

Vertical depth of disturbance can be documented through the judgmental excavation of auger tests; shovel tests; test units; or, in some cases, back hoe trenches. For areas with alluvial or colluvial



sediment accumulation, a geomorphological investigation may be necessary. Soil descriptions coupled with profile drawings and/or profile photographs should be included with the Phase I report.

In regard to historic-period occupations, it is important to note that fill levels can be evidence of changes in spatial utilization through time. Efforts should be made to date these deposits based on the presence of diagnostic artifacts to document changes through time on the landscape. It is important to remember that fill levels without historic integrity can cap National Register eligible resources, especially on urban or industrial sites.

If the entire project area is disturbed to the extent that archaeological survey would not be productive, the Record of Disturbance form (Appendix F) should be completed and sent to the PA SHPO for review.

RemoteSensingResistivity, magnetometry, sonar and radar scans, chemical tests, and other remote or indirect sensing techniques have been refined and used with some success in many cases, such as historic cemeteries, pre-contact pits and hearths, and fortification features. The success of these techniques is highly dependent on factors such as bedrock, soil conditions, feature size and composition, the depth of the feature, and the skill of the analyst. Some conditions preclude the use of these techniques: bedrock at or near the ground surface; consistently or periodically high water table; and/or soils with hardpans, fragipans, gravel concentrations, and high iron content. Because these techniques can be highly variable in their success and appropriate application, PA SHPO suggests consultation with the Regional Review Archaeologist, as well as specialists in the planned technique, prior to use of these techniques in the field. Specific guidance for the use of metal detectors in Phase I archaeological survey is presented below.

Metal Detecting Metal detector survey can be used on any historic or contact period site where it is expected that metal artifacts are present. In general, metal detector survey should be used for the identification of sites at the Phase I level or the definition/location of activity areas or features within a site at the Phase I or Phase II level. Specifically, an example for historic sites, metal detecting can be useful for locating outbuildings and fence lines that may not be visible at the surface. Identification of these ancillary features can greatly enhance the accuracy of site boundaries.

Metal detector survey should be used in tandem with standard site identification methods such as documentary research, surface survey, and shovel testing. For area of military action, such as battlefield (the core battle area) and/or encampment sites, metal detector survey should be used in all circumstances as it has been found that standard site identification methods, such as shovel testing, are not adequate for location of these types of sites. This circumstance is specifically detailed in Melissa Connor and Douglas Scott’s 1998 article in Historical Archaeology (32(4):62-82). It is important to note that for non-military sites metal detecting cannot be used as a substitute for other site identification/evaluation methods, but should be used as a targeted, supplemental technique.



Research designs utilizing metal detecting should be discussed in advance with the regional review archaeologist.

Metal detector coverage should be based on the research objectives, but at a minimum be conducted systematically along 1.5-meter lanes within the identified coverage areas. Lanes should overlap to ensure coverage at the lane edge. Vegetation and leaf litter may need to be removed within the survey lanes to allow for adequate coverage. Plastic pin flags should be used to mark “hit” locations and locations for potential excavation. All hit locations should be mapped to show artifact distribution.

Reporting the results of metal detector survey should include overall methodology, survey coverage, and a discussion of how that methodology is appropriate for the survey situation. If recommended minimum methods cannot be used, the methodology section should include information on the situation and how the methods were adjusted to accommodate. An example of a circumstance where this may apply is areas of heavy vegetation that may necessitate a project specific survey coverage method. Survey equipment type and personnel/qualifications should also be discussed along with a discussion of time spent in detection and set up. Mapping graphics should illustrate the width and orientation of detection lanes, pin flag locations, as well as any excavations placed for ground truthing. The ground truthing strategy should be specific to the circumstances of the survey, and justification for its use discussed in the survey methodology.

Metal detecting equipment used for survey should at a minimum include the following: 1) the ability to discriminate between metal types; 2) ground balance capabilities; 3) port for headphones; and 4) the ability to pin point. The use of good quality noise canceling headphones is highly recommended. Although no specific make or model detector is recommended, the technician operating the equipment should be familiar with the equipment as detector features and operations vary widely.

Archaeologists or technicians operating the metal detecting equipment should have at least 40 hours of hands-on field experience in metal detecting. It should be noted that in some areas of the Commonwealth local avocational detectorists groups have members who meet or exceed this experience. These groups can be a good resource both for helping to identify known site locations as well as locate experienced metal detectorists. The supervising archaeologist and the archaeologist responsible for the analysis and interpretation of the survey results should have an additional 60 hours of hands-on field experience and have completed a metal detecting training course. Courses specifically applicable to metal detection for archaeological investigation are offered by the non-profit group AMDA (Advanced Metal Detecting for the Archaeologist). These courses are certified by the Register of Professional Archaeologists (RPA) program as a continuing professional education class.



MonitoringMonitoring is the stationing of an observer to identify archaeological resources revealed during construction. Monitoring is most often used as part of an avoidance plan to ensure that archaeological resources identified during the Phase I or II survey and slated to be avoided are not inadvertently impacted during construction activities. Monitoring should be undertaken by a professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeology. The result of all monitoring activities should be reported to the PA SHPO at the conclusion of monitoring in an appropriate reporting format.

It is important to note that monitoring alone does not meet agencies’ legally-mandated responsibility to identify all significant resources, to consider the effect of projects on them, and to provide the PA SHPO and Advisory Council an opportunity to comment.

Preservation in Place Preservation in place is defined as encapsulation of a known archaeological resource below some amount of fill. Encapsulation can allow for some project-related use of the area into the future. This avoidance technique can be successfully utilized for archaeological site avoidance in very specific situations.

Successful preservation in place generally consists of placing clean, shallow fill over a site area and subjecting that area to passive or low impact (i.e. low potential for compaction) use. The fill overlying the site should not threaten to damage the site through compaction, changes to the water table, or changes to soil chemistry. These changes can damage archaeological features and some types of artifacts. For situations where long term impacts to preserved archaeological resources are unknown, monitoring of the archaeological site over time should be part of the avoidance plan. As with all avoidance plans, consideration of preservation in place as an avoidance tool should be discussed with the Regional Review Archaeologist and the regulating agency.

It is important to note that preservation in place cannot be used in place of archaeological survey.

Statewide Pre‐Contact Predictive ModelTestingThe new Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model was developed as a joint venture between the PA Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and the PA SHPO. Construction of the model consisted of sectioning the state into 10 regions based on Physiographic Zone and watershed, identifying and building the statistical model(s) by region using pre-contact site locations from the PASS Files, and analyzing relevant environmental factors. More information about the construction and testing of this predictive model can be found through our website at www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Cultural-Resources-GIS. The predictive model layer can be seen on the CRGIS for those with Planner or Archaeologist access. The model also can be obtained electronically through consultation with the CRGIS staff when projects are of the appropriate size (see below).

For areas of potential effect (APE) greater than 50 acres or linear survey areas longer than 15 miles testing of the Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model is needed in addition to the


www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/Cultural-Resources-GIS


comparison discussed below. Testing methodology should be approved prior to fieldwork through consultation with the regional PA SHPO archaeologist. Approval of the testing strategy should be documented using the Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Testing Methodology (PMTM) Form (see Appendix F). The completed PMTM Form will be a required appendix for every archaeological survey report for areas that meet or exceed the above APE size.

Note to consultants: PennDOT will require use of the model on the majority of its projects, including projects much smaller than those for which the PA SHPO will require use of the model.

Analysis

Artifacts The artifact analysis for Phase I surveys should record the basic facts about the artifact collections and present them in a summarized manner that allows for understanding the potential significance of any site identified. The basic facts for any collection should include:

1) The tabulation of all artifacts by provenience unit, stratum (or arbitrary level), and feature

2) Artifact material (e.g. lithic, ceramic, metal, glass, etc.). Specify named material types if known (e.g. Onondoga Chert, Flint Ridge chalcedony)

3) Artifact functional type (e.g. projectile point, flake, nail, button, etc.) 4) Total artifact count by site 5) Total artifact counts and percentages by functional and material categories 6) Total artifact count by frequency per unit area or volume (e.g. square meter, cubic meter,

etc.) 7) Diagnostic artifact identification specifying cultural/chronological types, if known (e.g.

Brewerton Corner-notched, creamware, Owens scar, etc.). Photographs of all diagnostic points and sample historic diagnostic artifacts should be included.

PhaseISite IdentificationandBoundaryDefinitionThe identification of an archaeological site based on the recovery of artifacts and/or the identification of features should be based on the guidance provided in the site identification criteria (Appendix C).

Phase I site boundaries should be defined based on the location of recovered/observed artifacts and features. At a minimum, the site boundaries should encompass all of the artifacts and features associated with a particular site. At the Phase I level, boundary definition should heavily consider landform and topography. Larger site areas, including potentially multiple artifact concentrations more than 50-feet apart, should be grouped appropriately within the same landform. Should additional investigation at the Phase II level show that multiple sites exist, the site can be split and a second site trinomial can be assigned.



For projects limited to a narrow transect through a portion of a site (e.g. pipeline or sewer line rights-of-way or highway sliver-takes) the extent of the site within the right-of-way should be defined. The likely extent of the site beyond the right-of-way should be estimated based on topographic or other features, such as landforms and waterways. For historic sites, associated standing structures and other historic features should be included within the site boundary.

Statewide Pre‐Contact Probability ModelComparisonand Testing Results

Comparison Analysis For all project areas, the results of archaeological survey should be compared to the results predicted by the probability model. This analysis should be presented as a separate section in all Phase I reports entitled “Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Comparison”. The following questions should be answered within this analysis:

1) For each portion of your project area that has a displayed probability, do the results of archaeological testing support the model prediction?

2) If the results of survey differ from the model prediction, why do you think that is the case?

A completed testing methodology matrix should also be included in this section (see below). If using the Negative Survey Form, the model comparison section should also be completed.

Below is a sample comparison matrix for reference. Use the model from CRGIS to determine portions of the project area that were located within each sensitivity tier and list all testing methods used within each tier. If more than one method was used, estimate the percentage of the tier tested by each method. In the Sites Located section, include Diagnostic Isolated Finds for which a number is assigned. Do not provide Non-Site Collection numbers. The measure of area should be provided in square meters.

Sensitivity Tier

Area within this Tier in Square Meters

Percent of Total Project Area

Method(s) Used to test this tier (Use list from Line 5 of the Negative Survey Form. Include % if multiple.)

Number of Sites Located

High sq. m. % Moderate sq. m. % Low sq. m. %

Testing Analysis For projects with areas of potential effect (APE) greater than 50 acres or linear survey areas longer than 15 miles, the results of model testing should be presented in a separate section entitled “Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Comparison and Testing”. In addition to the questions answered for the comparison, this section should include:



1) A discussion of the approved testing methodology 2) A discussion of how that methodology varied (if applicable) from the methodology used

for the remainder of the survey 3) A comparison of all testing results to the model prediction. Did the model work for

predicting the locations of sites within the surveyed area? 4) An analysis of the potential strengths and/or weaknesses in the model for future

refinement

A completed testing methodology matrix should also be included in this section.

Reporting

The results of the Phase I survey should be presented in a report meeting the standards and specifications of the PA SHPO and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Archaeological Documentation (see Reporting). The report serves as the scientific record of the investigation and is the basis for recommendations by the consultant as to the adequacy of the Phase I survey and the need for additional work. PA SHPO staff will review the reports and comment on the consultant recommendations.

When a project involves both archaeological and historic structures survey, the two efforts should be coordinated. In this manner, the information gained from the historic structures survey will be incorporated into the historic contexts for the archaeological investigation. This coordination will aid in the prediction of the types and locations of historic sites to be expected and the preliminary assessments of any historic archaeological findings. These two different types of survey should, however, be written up as separate reports and presented under separate cover, as the report formats are different.

In some circumstances, it may be desirable to split the Phase I effort into two parts: Phase IA and Phase IB. The Phase IA report would include the background research; results of the site visit; probability assessment or predictive modeling; and, potentially, geomorphology. The Phase IB effort would consist of field work in areas identified for testing through the Phase IA effort. Should the Phase IA effort reveal that there is no potential for the presence of archaeological sites within the entirety of the project area, a Phase IA report or Record of Disturbance Form, as appropriate, should be completed and submitted to our office for review. Should the Phase IA evaluation reveal that all or some portion of the project area should be subject to Phase IB field testing, it is preferred that the Phase IA evaluation results be presented with the Phase IB field testing results under one cover.

Avoidance Plan Avoidance plans document how project activities will avoid impacts to archaeological resources. The avoidance plan should consist of text documenting the avoidance activities as well as mapping as appropriate. Avoidance plans can be stand-alone documents or can be included within full



archaeological reports (Phase I or Phase II). If included within a report the plan should be provided as a separate appendix. Avoidance activities commonly consist of:

1) Relocation of ground disturbing activities associated with the project, with or without buffer zones.

2) Fencing along the edge of the planned area of disturbance in the vicinity of the archaeological resource

3) Monitoring (see below) 4) Marking archaeological sites as “Sensitive Areas” on project plans. 5) Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) with accompanying drill failure plan (also known

as a Frac-out Plan). 6) Geotextile and fill as per PennDOT specifications. These specifications can be found in

the PennDOT Cultural Resources Handbook on pages 10-2 and 10-3. 7) Preservation in place (see below).

All avoidance plans should be discussed with the Regional Review Archaeologist because not all avoidance activities can be used in all situations.



PHASE II: Site Evaluation

Introduction

The purpose of Phase II testing is to evaluate a site’s National Register eligibility through a more thorough sampling of the archaeological deposits identified during Phase I Survey. Under federal and state laws, only National Register eligible sites are afforded further consideration in the consultation process. Consequently, National Register evaluation of archaeological sites is necessary to determine which sites are eligible and will be potentially adversely affected by a project’s activities, and which sites are not eligible and warrant no further consideration.

For all historic properties, National Register eligibility is based on a property’s significance and integrity. To be significant, a property must meet at least one of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation as discussed in the National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. To have integrity, a property must be able to convey its significance. While archaeological sites may be eligible under any of the four Criteria, they are most often eligible under Criterion D for the important information they may contain. The National Register Bulletin Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Archeological Properties outlines the five primary steps in a Criterion D evaluation:

1) Identify the property’s data set(s) or categories of archaeological, historical, or ecological information.

2) Identify the historic context(s) that is the appropriate historical and archaeological framework in which to evaluate the property.

3) Identify the important research questions that the property’s data sets can be expected to address.

4) Take archaeological integrity into consideration; evaluate the data sets in terms of their potential and known ability to answer research questions.

5) Identify the important information that an archaeological study of the property has yielded or is likely to yield.

If a property’s data set(s) contain the information and integrity needed to answer research questions, as identified through placing the site within its context, then the site has the potential to yield important information and is significant.

It is important to note that for sites or properties eligible under Criterion D, integrity requirements, specifically archaeological integrity, will relate directly to the types of research questions defined as part of the Phase II investigation. Overall, however, the following site characteristics are considered to be good indicators that a site area may retain archaeological integrity:

1) Spatial patterning of surface artifacts or features that represent differential uses or activities; 2) Spatial patterning of subsurface artifacts or features; and



3) Lack of serious/significant visible disturbance to the properties archaeological deposits.

Each archaeological site that undergoes a Phase II investigation should be evaluated for both its significance and integrity. This evaluation should be provided in the Recommendations Section of the archaeological report as an argument for or against the site’s National Register eligibility. If the site is being recommended as eligible for the National Register, the argument for site eligibility should also reference which Criteria the site should be considered eligible under. A recommendation for National Register eligibility for each evaluated archaeological site is necessary for a submitted report to meet these Guidelines.

PA SHPO Opinion on Eligibility

The PA SHPO opinion on National Register eligibility of archaeological sites is also determined by evaluating each site based on the National Register Criteria. Specifically, the PA SHPO opinion will include consideration of:

1) Temporally diagnostic artifact types or artifact assemblages; 2) Artifact assemblages that identify site function; 3) A representative artifact sample sufficient to characterize the horizontal and vertical extent

of the site; 4) The presence or absence of features; 5) For historic sites, the quality of the documentary record; 6) Archaeological integrity.

The following section includes guidance on Context Development, Field Methods, and Analysis.

Context Development for National Register Eligibility

Since most archaeological sites will be evaluated under Criterion D, the information below focuses almost exclusively on context development for that Criterion. For information on context development for other Criteria, refer to the PA SHPO’s 2014 Guidelines for Architectural Investigation in Pennsylvania (page 20) at: www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/Architectural-Guidelines.pdf.

Contexts are the analytical framework within which a site’s importance can be understood, articulated, and assessed. For a particular site, the context should:

1) Identify the time period, the geographic area, and the site type into which the site falls, making sure to identify the research questions that the site may ultimately address;

2) Draw on additional documentary research, beyond the background information presented in the Phase I report;

3) Synthesize the background data collected, and;


www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Documents/Architectural


4) Present the context.

Once the context is built, a discussion of how the site under evaluation fits within the context should be provided. This discussion will provide the basis for the site’s National Register significance as discussed in the Site Evaluation and Recommendations Section of the Phase II report.

Note: Specific to Pre-Contact Sites In addition to doing the above, contexts specific to pre-contact sites should focus on the watershed model and should include discussion of regional or local settlement patterns, geomorphology, soils, local climate, and biota as they relate to site formation and preservation processes.

Note: Specific to Historic Sites In addition to doing the above, contexts specific to historic sites should provide an understanding of the historic character of the project area including the history of property ownership, occupation, land-use, and development. Historic site contexts should also include documentation of significant persons or events associated with the project area or site.

ContextandResearch QuestionsThe context should take into account the type of site that is being evaluated, including its time period and its location, and should be limited to the information needed for site evaluation. It should not be simply a history but should instead identify and explain the significant historic themes that characterize the area surveyed. All other context parameters will be site-specific.

Research questions are a set of questions formulated to guide the scope, methods, and techniques of an archaeological investigation. These questions should be based on the type of information previous investigations of similar sites yielded as well as gaps in the general archaeological knowledge or understanding of a particular time period, site type, location, and so forth. Some standard research questions for pre-contact sites address settlement patterning, inter- and intra-site artifact patterning, seasonality, trade, and economy. Some standard research questions for historic sites address socio-economic status, gender, ethnicity, trade, and market spheres. Each Phase II site evaluation, as presented in the Site Evaluation and Recommendations section of the report, should include a discussion of potential research questions and the ability of the site data to provide information relevant to each question.

AdditionalDocumentaryResearchPhase II documentary research should be conducted prior to any field testing as this information is critical to developing a sound research design, including appropriate field testing strategies and techniques. In addition to the background research conducted for the Phase I survey, Phase II context development should explore the following types of sources:



1) Cultural Resource Management Reports (Survey Report File) and PASS and Historic Resource Survey forms (Resource File) as available on the CRGIS and in the physical PA SHPO archive in Harrisburg.

2) Primary documents including, but not limited to, deeds, tax assessments, insurance surveys, census data, road dockets, city directories, maps and atlases, city plots, building permits, lithographs, and photographs.

1) Secondary literature including, but not limited to, journal articles, research reports, regional syntheses, and books.

2) Briefs of title (for historic archaeological sites).

Note: Specific to Urban Historic Sites For urban historic sites, attention should be given to the history of city services (water, sewer, and trash collection) as they affect the nature of the archaeological record. In addition to the sources listed above, researchers should consult ordinances and resolutions, health department records, utility company records, and other municipal records and maps. Intensive background research in urban areas has provided for some very effective predictions concerning the locations and depths of significant archaeological deposits, particularly for projects in cities such as Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The differences between public policy and actual practice, however, should be recognized in attempting to use documentary data to predict the location of archaeological resources.

Note: Specific to Submerged Historic Sites For submerged historic sites consisting of the location of a ship wreck, attention should be given to documentation of the vessel’s history, construction, and importance. For other cultural remains, such as rock-filled timber cribs for city water intake, chevaux-de-frise, or submerged maritime commercial sites, research should focus on their construction and purpose and include the history of their industry/technology.

For submerged sites, specialized repositories and sources may need to be consulted in addition to standard historic records. Depending on the type and history of the site, research in repositories such as the National Archives, Library of Congress, or the archives of the U.S. Naval War College may be appropriate.



FieldMethods

Phase II field methods for each site should be based on the results of the Phase I survey and should result in testing that meets the following goals:

1) Recovery of a sufficient sample of information about the site to support a National Register Determination of Eligibility (DOE) opinion.

2) Development of research questions specific to the site type, data sets, features, and context as applicable.

3) Confirmation of the site boundary. More information regarding site boundary definition can be found in the Phase II Analysis section.

4) Identification and classification of features if present. 5) Analysis of horizontal and vertical intra-site artifact and feature distribution. 6) Site, context, and feature dating through diagnostic artifacts, artifact assemblage analysis,

geomorphology, and relative dating techniques. More information on dating can be found in the Phase II Analysis section.

7) Recovery of botanical, pollen, and faunal information. More information on botanical, pollen, and faunal remains can be found in the Phase II Analysis section.

Phase II testing should meet the Phase II goals as stated above, while not unnecessarily disturbing more of the site than is needed to determine National Register eligibility. These guidelines denote a target range for level of effort rather than identifying a set, specific standard level of effort. The rationale behind having a range of effort is to incorporate flexibility within site evaluation. If data sufficient to characterize the site as eligible is obtained within the lower end of the effort range, then Phase II investigations should be halted and the site recommended as eligible. If data sufficient to characterize the site as eligible has not been recovered at the high end of the effort range then the site should be recommended not eligible. The following sections detail standard methodologies specific to both historic and pre-contact sites. It should be noted that alternative methods can be used in any circumstance if those methods can be explicitly justified and shown to be at least equivalent to the standard methods presented within these Guidelines. The use of any alternative method should be discussed with the Regional Archaeological Reviewer prior to implementation of that method in the field.

The PA SHPO expects the development of a work plan for Phase II evaluation in consultation with the Regional Archaeological Review prior to field investigations. All work plans should include adherence to OSHA safety standards. Nothing in these Guidelines is intended to involve unsafe working conditions.



Unstratified Sites

Plowed Contexts For sites that are located within plowed, unstratified (typically upland) contexts a minimum of two controlled surface collections should be performed. The field should be plowed, disked, and rain-washed before each collection to produce adequate visibility for the recovery of artifacts. If the site was subject to a controlled surface collection as part of the Phase I survey, that surface collection can be counted as one of the two necessary for Phase II evaluation. Surface collection should be conducted as a grid of small interval collection blocks (5 meter or less) or, alternatively, by piece-plotting surface artifacts using a transit or GPS tied to a permanent datum and grid system. In either case, all observed artifacts should be collected for most artifact types. For certain artifact types a sample can be collected (i.e. brick, window glass, plaster, etc.…). Consult with the SHPO regional reviewer before instituting a sampling strategy.

After the surface collections are complete, the plow zone should be stripped to look for cultural features. A range of 10 to 25% of the affected site area (i.e. the site area within the APE) should be stripped, cleaned with shovels and/or trowels, and examined for the presence of features. If features are located after 10% of the site has been stripped, then this procedure should cease and the site should be evaluated for its National Register eligibility. If features have not been located, stripping should continue either until features are found or until 25% of the site area within the APE has been stripped and examined. Mechanical removal of the plow zone should always be carefully monitored by an archaeologist to ensure that the excavation does not extend below the interface between the plow zone and the subsoil. Of note, it should not be assumed that there is a clear correlation between surface artifact distributions and subsurface features – this correlation, if present, should be demonstrated by testing.

Unplowed Contexts For un-stratified sites located in areas where visibility is restricted by vegetation cover, where plowing for controlled surface collection is not possible, where the potential for undisturbed topsoil exists, or where historic archaeological features are visible at the surface, Phase II testing should consist of hand excavated test units. Shovel tests can be used for boundary definition. The excavation sample should range between 3 and 10% of the total site area within the project area. This sample includes excavation previously completed as part of the Phase I survey. It is thought that an artifact sample of this size is necessary to sufficiently characterize a site (Klein 2001, Shott 1987).

Note: Specific to Pre-Contact Sites Phase II survey work for pre-contact sites should include close-interval shovel testing at a five meter or smaller interval to sample the horizontal distribution of artifacts across the site area and to refine the site boundaries. Following shovel testing, 1x1 meter test unit excavation should proceed until the total sample level of between 3 and 10% (as noted above) is reached.



Note: Specific to Historic Sites Phase II survey work for historic sites should include excavation units, hand excavated trenches, and/or shovel tests placed to refine the site boundary, search for features not visible at the surface, sample visible site features, provide information on artifact distribution across the site, and gather information on landscape changes and spatial utilization of the site through time. The distribution and type of testing will be site-specific and should consider any documentary evidence for the location of features. The PA SHPO strongly recommends consulting with the Regional Review Archaeologist when developing the Phase II work plan for historic sites.

For some historic sites, especially urban or industrial sites, fill deposits will be present that are not part of the potential significance of the site. This determination should be made as part of the Phase I survey of the site. If it is not confirmed during the Phase I survey, it should be an early consideration of the Phase II survey. If these types of deposits are identified, mechanical removal can be considered within the Phase II work plan to search for features, facilitate the placement of hand excavated tests, or enhance site safety. Emphasis will be placed on the reasonable and judicious use of mechanized equipment as a practical aid in conducting time and cost-effective archaeological excavation. This equipment is a complement to, not a substitute for, more traditional archaeological field methods. It should also be noted that if fill deposits that are not part of the potential significance of the site are identified, it may not be necessary to screen these deposits through hardware cloth. The need to screen samples of the material should be assessed on an individual basis. The use of mechanical equipment in Phase II excavation, and the need to screen mechanically removed fill deposits should be discussed in advance of field work with the Regional Review Archaeologist during development of the Phase II work plan.

StratifiedSites The presence of stratified archaeological deposits and the depth of testing necessary should have been identified at the Phase I level. The Phase II testing for stratified sites should consist of 1x1 meter test units and/or block excavation sampling of between 3 and 10% of the total site area within the project area. This excavation sample includes excavation previously completed as part of the Phase I survey. All identified cultural levels should be sampled. In cases of very deeply stratified sites, consult with the Regional Review Archaeologist prior to finalizing the work plan.



Note: Specific to Submerged Historic Sites The Regional Review Archaeologist at the PA SHPO should be contacted if the results of the Phase I investigation indicate that submerged archaeological resources exist or are likely to exist in the project area and that those resources may be affected by the proposed undertaking. The development of a physical testing program should be undertaken in consultation with the PA SHPO and should be designed to be appropriate for the specifics of the resource and the conditions in which survey will be undertaken.

As with Phase I survey, a Phase II investigation must be overseen and completed by an experienced maritime archaeologist. The PA SHPO considers qualifications to supervise this work as an equivalency of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Archaeology. This includes, at a minimum, an advanced degree in Anthropology, Archaeology, or a closely related field with a focus in underwater or maritime archaeology with three years of professional experience in this discipline including a year of supervision.

FeatureExcavation To ensure comparability of results, certain procedures should be applied in the treatment of all archaeological features encountered in Phase II testing:

1) Prior to excavation, features should be troweled and cleaned to expose them completely, mapped in plan view, and photographed.

2) Features should be sectioned and profiled by hand to reveal contours and stratigraphy. Profile drawings and photographs should be made.

3) If stratified fill is apparent or suspected, the feature should be excavated in natural stratigraphic levels or appropriate arbitrary levels (10cm or less), with plan drawings and photographs as appropriate.

4) A sample of fill not less than 3 liters in volume should be recovered from each feature for flotation or from each discrete level within a feature. The BHP recommends that 25-50% of the fill from each feature be collected for later sampling, flotation, and analysis (100% if less than 3 liters). For historic features, the fill sample collected may be less than 25-50% if the context and comparative data suggest that a large sample would be redundant or unproductive.

5) All features should be assigned unique and consistent feature numbers. 6) All artifacts recovered from features should be bagged and labeled by provenience unit and

feature number.



Note: Specific to Historic Sites For historic foundation remains, unit or trench excavations should at a minimum bisect the foundation, sampling both the interior and exterior contexts. Excavation in this manner should: 1) document a stratigraphic cross section of the feature; 2) identify the presence or absence of associated use-surface or contexts (i.e. the historic ground surface or a builder’s trench); 3) sample interior fills and identify the presence or absence of a cellar; and 4) identify the presence of absence of intact interior use surfaces or deposits beneath interior fills.

Sealed features that may contain a large quantity of artifacts, such as privy or well shafts, may not be completely excavated at the Phase II level. The emphasis in this phase should be on recording and evaluating the presence of significant archaeological levels within these types of features. This should result in the partial excavation of the feature during the Phase II survey with the remainder of the feature excavated as part of the Phase III data-recovery excavation, if the site is eligible. A probe may be used in these cases to determine the maximum depth of the feature and aid in the development of the Phase III data recovery plan. In circumstances where the security or stability of the feature is in question, it may be necessary to fully excavate the feature when it is located, as part of the Phase II survey. The Regional Review Archaeologist should be consulted in this circumstance.

Analysis

Artifacts The artifact analysis for Phase II evaluations should be undertaken specifically to produce results that can be used for the assessment of the site’s National Register eligibility. The precise nature of the analysis needed will thus depend on the site context and potential research questions. Certain analyses, however, are necessary to curate and stabilize the collection and assess overall data potential. The analyses listed below should be undertaken for all Phase II evaluations and should include all of the artifacts collected as part of Phase I and Phase II fieldwork:

1) The tabulation of all artifacts by type, provenience unit, stratum (or arbitrary level), and feature.

2) The categorization of all artifacts in a manner that allows for comparisons with other sites and other artifact collections.

a. For stone tools, this includes classification by functional/technological/morphological type and raw material.

b. For pre-contact ceramics, this includes classification by type/ware and temper. c. For historic artifacts, this includes classification by functional and material classes as

well as by diagnostic classifications and nomenclature. d. For floral and faunal specimens, this includes classification by taxon (genus or

species) and structural part (e.g. long bone, scapula, scales, nut, etc.).



3) For sites of the appropriate age, radiocarbon samples (when available) should be analyzed and the resulting dates and standard deviations should be provided.

4) The examination of intra-site artifact patterning, both vertical and horizontal, and the identification of potential activity areas. This should include the mapping of differential artifact densities, artifact types, diagnostic artifacts, and types of lithic raw material.

5) Discussion of feature formation, age, function, and use-life when features are present.

DatingofSiteComponentsThe dating of archaeological components at a site is essential to any evaluation of site eligibility. In most cases the artifact assemblage resulting from Phase I and II testing will contain some temporally or culturally diagnostic artifacts and permit at least relative dating of the site. The dating of all sites should be discussed specifically both for the site in its entirety and for individual components and/or features when applicable.

Note: Specific to Pre-Contact Sites For pre-contact sites, the PA SHPO recommends that relative diagnostic artifact dating and stratigraphic relationships be confirmed or cross-checked with absolute dating whenever possible. The most common and reliable absolute dating technique is radiocarbon or carbon-14 dating. Carbon samples should be collected from any feature where carbon is present in enough quantity to collect and process for consideration when evaluating the site for National Register eligibility. Carbon-14 dating is of particular utility for sites that lack diagnostic artifacts or when the sample of diagnostic artifacts is small, or the context questionable. Where large carbon samples are not available or where cultigen samples (i.e. corn, beans, seeds, etc.) have been recovered, AMS dating is appropriate and should be undertaken.

Note: Specific to Historic Sites For historic sites, the site and internal contexts/features should be dated using diagnostic artifacts as well as historic records. If large assemblages of suitable artifacts have been recovered, pipe-stem and mean ceramic date formulas or other appropriate analysis should be applied. For individual features, contexts, midden, or fills, diagnostic artifacts or groups of diagnostic artifacts can provide Terminus Post Quem and Terminus Ante Quem dates. These specific dated contexts should be used to identify date spans for overall site occupation and provide information for a history of site use. Each of the principal contexts or components of a historic site should be dated.

As historic sites are not static entities, the internal layout of the site, placement of features, and site use can and does change over time. Phase II analysis of historic sites should also address site history through a discussion of feature phasing and landscape development. This can be accomplished through the dating of individual foundations, features, middens, and fills, as discussed above



BotanicalandFaunalAnalysisThe potential of an archaeological site to offer data on environment, subsistence, and diet is largely dependent on the recovery and analysis of a sample of animal and plant species contemporary with and used by its human occupants. Except for stratified sites (discussed below), faunal and botanical remains should be collected from all appropriate feature contexts through screening (1/4” mesh or finer) and flotation sampling. Any standard flotation sample method is acceptable as long as the method is consistently applied to all contexts for that specific site and the methods are described in the Methodology Section of the archaeological report. Specimens recovered from flotation samples should be sorted to the most specific identifiable level and counts of specimens should be undertaken. Such analysis may involve the services of a specialist.

For stratified archaeological sites, in addition to samples from feature contexts, flotation soil samples from soil columns should also be collected. In general, soil columns should be at least 30cm x 30cm in cross section, to provide sufficient volumes of soil for flotation. These samples may be taken in conjunction with soil samples for pedological or geomorphological studies.

Note: Specific to Historic Sites In addition to the analysis described above, for historic sites, faunal analysis should include the identification of butchery, and where possible, meat cuts.

PhaseIISite Boundary Definition Horizontal and vertical boundary definition is necessary for every site that undergoes Phase II evaluation. Boundary definition and site boundary refinement allows for a complete evaluation of site significance, the evaluation of project effects, and provides the parameters for Phase III level mitigation if the site is determined eligible for the National Register. As noted in the Phase I section, preliminary archaeological site boundaries are generally determined based on the vertical/horizontal extent of associated artifacts and features, while taking into account the immediate topography and landform. Phase II boundaries should further define the site area based on all additional research and field investigation. The refined site boundaries developed after Phase II level site evaluation should at a minimum encompass all of the artifacts and features associated with a particular site. If Phase II research or field investigation illustrates that more than one site exists within an area identified during the Phase I investigation as one site, updated site forms should be submitted to our office as outlined in Appendix C. Additional site numbers will be issued as appropriate.



Note: Specific to Historic Sites For historic sites, in addition to recovered artifacts and identified features, documentary research and the evaluation of visible natural or cultural landscape features are often necessary to arrive at a site boundary. Documentary sources such as historic and modern aerial photographs, historic maps, and deed information can be useful in this endeavor. For many types of historic sites, especially residential sites and sites in urban areas, site boundaries may coincide with legal property boundaries. For those sites for which modern legal property boundaries should not be used, site boundaries should reflect the use of the landscape as it pertains to the occupation of the location, not just the spatial extent of artifacts. This means that boundaries should include all related buildings, structures and/or other features (standing or in ruin), including but not limited to residences, barns, outbuildings, wells/cisterns, privies, road alignments, fence lines, and middens.

It is important to note that in many cases boundary definition for historic sites may be arbitrary. This may especially be the case in urban or suburban settings. For urban settings boundary definition should focus on identifying the relevant, associated site area. The site may be a single feature, one legal tax parcel, or a city block depending on the type of site. For suburban or rural historic sites, it is common that land use changes through time have substantially altered, or even erased, the historic site boundaries or features that are generally used for boundary definition. In these instances, boundary definition should focus on what portion of the site area has not been impacted through modern development. For example, if a portion of a historic farmstead is now the site of a modern housing development, this area would no longer be included within the defined archaeological site boundaries. Further, it should be noted that the historic resource boundary, as identified on the Historic Resource Survey Form (HRSF), may not be the same as the boundary of the archaeological site.



PHASE III: Mitigation of Adverse Effects

Agreement Documents

All compliance projects that are determined to have an unavoidable adverse effect on cultural resources should codify the mitigation in an agreement document: a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for Section 106 projects and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for projects conducted under the PA State History Code. The PA SHPO strongly recommends that the development of the agreement document, and development of mitigation alternatives, should be undertaken as soon as all project effects on cultural resources have been identified. For federal projects under Section 106, the development process should be led by the lead federal agency and include at a minimum the participation of the PA SHPO, the project sponsor, interested Native American Tribes, and any other entity identified as a consulting party by the agency. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) should be invited to participate in all federal agreements.

Each agreement document should be tailored to meet the specific needs of each project; however, there are sections that should be present in all agreement documents. These common sections include:

1) Whereas statements: statements that lay out the specifics and parameters of the project 2) Identification of historic properties and adverse effects: note which historic properties

are located within the project area and which of those properties will be adversely effected

3) Mitigation: detail what will be done to mitigate the identified adverse effects 4) Administrative Conditions: include qualifications, sun-setting, curation, amendments,

dispute resolution, unanticipated discovery, etc. 5) Signatories 6) Appendices: such as maps, tables, data recovery plan, etc.

Our office recommends using the ACHP standard MOA document template available on the ACHP website as the basis for drafting mitigation agreements. Additional guidance on drafting Section 106 agreement documents in general can also be found on the ACHP website.

Mitigation Activities

For an archaeological site that is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, if the site cannot be avoided by project redesign, the impacts to that site should be mitigated through either data recovery, or in cases where data recovery cannot be accomplished, an alternative mitigation project. Data recovery plans or alternative mitigation projects should be developed in consultation with the PA SHPO and the lead federal agency, and be detailed as part of the project agreement document.



DataRecoveryThe goal of data recovery is to recover and preserve the information which makes the site significant (i.e. eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places) and then to make that information accessible to the public. This important information must be recovered prior to disturbance from project activities. Archaeological data recovery generally involves relatively large-scale excavations, detailed laboratory analysis, the production of reports detailing the findings, and public outreach.

The details of the data recovery should be outlined in a Data Recovery Plan that is appended to the MOA. Each Data Recovery Plan will be site-specific, but all plans should at a minimum:

1) Identify research questions. These questions should be based on the site context developed in the Phase II evaluation.

2) Identify the level of effort. The excavation should result in an excavation that reaches the point of diminishing returns for the information held within the site.

3) Define a suitable excavation strategy. This should include specifics as to the number, type, and placement of excavation units/tests as well as strategies for feature excavation and the collection/processing of samples for analysis.

4) Detail the type, level, and method of artifact analysis. These analyses should be appropriate to the site type, date, and anticipated artifact collection.

5) Detail the type, level, and method of artifact and feature dating. These techniques should be appropriate to the artifact, feature, or sample anticipated.

6) Define public outreach activities. These activities should attempt to reach various audiences through various media. The PA SHPO always encourages the consideration of new, creative, or innovative activities.

It should be noted that only the portion of the site within the project area must be mitigated. If any portion of an eligible or listed archaeological site extends beyond the project area or area of project disturbance, an avoidance plan for the portion of the site that will remain undisturbed should be included in the Data Recovery Plan.

The results of the data recovery excavations and analysis should be presented in a Phase III Data Recovery Report. Information on report formatting can be found in the Reporting section of these Guidelines. The data recovery excavation should adhere as closely as possible to the Data Recovery Plan. Deviation from the plan during excavation should be discussed with the PA SHPO and lead federal agency prior to implementation of the changes. All changes made in the field to the Data Recovery Plan should be detailed and justified within the Phase III report.

Alternative MitigationFor archaeological sites, alternative mitigation is any mitigation activity that does not include substantial additional excavation of the affected archaeological site, and which is agreed upon by all signatories of the project agreement document. Alternative mitigation may be appropriate and



should be discussed and considered in situations where a project will only impact a portion of a site (such as a very narrow road widening or pipeline) and/or where excavation is not possible due to safety and engineering problems. Alternative mitigation should be developed in consultation with the lead federal or state agency, the PA SHPO, Native American Tribes, any identified consulting parties, and the ACHP should they choose to participate.

Our office has developed Criteria for Meaningful Mitigation, which is intended to provide a framework for discussing the appropriate mitigation of adverse effects. These criteria consider:

1) The significance of the property 2) The Public benefit of the mitigation project 3) The needs of all parties 4) The enhancement of knowledge and protection of Historic Properties 5) The Project cost and project effect.

While not all criteria must be met for each alternative mitigation project, all criteria should be considered and included to the greatest extent possible. The Criteria for Meaningful Mitigation worksheet is available from our office upon request.



REPORTING

Reporting Options

The results of archaeological identification (Phase I), documentation of disturbance, site evaluation (Phase II), and mitigation (Phase III) should be presented to our office in a standard format that will aid in timely and efficient review of projects by PA SHPO review archaeologists. Standardization is not intended to inhibit particular analytical approaches or the creativity of individual researchers; rather standard formats represent the minimum level of acceptable documentation for archaeological compliance projects. The standard format discussed below should be modified as needed to accommodate the special needs of a particular project or project phase.

PhaseIReportingThe results of Phase I survey can be presented in several ways depending on the circumstance. A full Phase I Report can be submitted in any circumstance. The report should conform at a minimum to the standard report format and follow the submission procedures, both outlined below. Geomorphology should be integrated into the body of the report text and the entire original specialist report provided as an appendix. If the project area is 15-acres or less, and no archaeological sites are identified, a Negative Survey Form can be submitted in place of a standard Phase I report. If the project area has been demonstrated to be disturbed in its entirety, a Record of Disturbance Form can be submitted in place of a standard Phase I report. Both forms can be found on our website: http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms-Guidance.aspx.

PhaseII andPhaseIII ReportingThe results of Phase II Evaluation and Phase III Mitigation should be presented in a standard report format and follow the submission procedures below. Combined Phase I and Phase II reporting in one Phase I/II archaeological report is encouraged by our office for expediency and efficiency if an archaeological site has been identified during the Phase I survey and evaluation of the site for National Register eligibility is necessary. For Phase II and Phase III reports, information from specialists (i.e. geomorphology, remote sensing, floral and/or faunal analysis, etc.) should be integrated into the body of the report text and the entire original specialist reports provided as appendices.

Addendum ReportsFor some projects, it is not possible to survey the project area in its entirety and submit the results of the survey in one, complete Phase I report. This circumstance is generally due to landowner access issues within a portion of a project area and/or subsequent project alignment shifts or redesigns. When it is necessary to provide partial Phase I survey results, those areas that have not undergone survey should be clearly noted in the initial Phase I report text and on project mapping. When survey is complete for those areas that did not undergo survey initially, the results of survey should be provided as a Phase I Survey Addendum Report. The report should be marked as an addendum, and, if multiple addendum reports are provided, each should indicate the addendum number. Project


http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms


mapping for all addendum reports should clearly show which portions of the project area have been previously reported on (cite report) and which portions are reported on in the submitted addendum. Appropriate sections, such as Background or Research and Field Methodology, should reference information in the original report rather than repeating information from the original report. Negative Survey Forms can be submitted as addendum reports if the area reported on in the addendum is 15 acres or less and no archaeological sites were identified.

SHPO Report and Form Submission Procedures

1) Provide one bound hard copy and one .PDF electronic copy (on a CD) of reports for review. Also include on the CD a copy of the project area shape file (if available) (Appendix G). The project area shape file should represent only the area in which the presence/absence of archaeological resources has been considered, and for which information about that consideration is being presented in the report under review. Do not mark initial report submissions as draft.

2) For reports with archaeological sites, include on the CD with the draft report .PDF electronic copies of each completed PASS form and shape files (if available) for each site boundary.

3) Each CD provided should be encased in a clear polypropylene CD/DVD holder with a top-tab index opening for labels (C-Line Deluxe Brand Preferred).

4) Include the ER Number on the cover and/or cover page of all reports and forms. Include the ER number on each CD. Do not include the alpha code (see Appendix A) in either circumstance.

5) All hard copy reports and forms should be bound with comb or spiral binding. Staples or three-ring binders will not be accepted. Staples are not archival and the three-ring binders will not fit on our archive shelves.

6) All reports and/or forms submitted should include a 7.5 minute USGS map figure showing the outline of the project area and if applicable the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Circles of and/or arrows pointing to a general area are not acceptable. The project area should show the entirety of the area involved in the project. The APE should represent only the area in which the presence/absence of archaeological resources has been considered, and for which information about that consideration is being presented in the report under review.

7) For all reports, place tables, figures, and photographs on the page(s) following the reference or discussion in the text. All maps need to include scales and north arrows; historic maps that did not originally have a scale need only have a north arrow. Very large figures or a series of figures/maps may be placed in the appendices.



8) All reports must include a completed hard copy Report Summary Form OR have accompanying, completed, electronic Report Data Entry submission (submitted through CRGIS). The hard copy form should be bound into the report appendices. The electronic Report Data Entry should be completed and submitted at the same time as the draft report submission. Electronic Report Data Entry must be completed for all reports and forms. Hard Copy Report Summary Forms need only accompany reports as they are not needed for Negative Survey and Record of Disturbance Forms. We encourage all submissions to utilize the electronic Report Data Entry.

9) Include the PASS, Isolated Find number(s), or Non-Site Collection number(s) in all appropriate locations within the report if an archaeological site(s), isolated find(s), or non-site collection(s) is identified during survey (Appendix C). The PASS form and Isolated Find/ Non-Site Collection Form can be found on our website at http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms-Guidance.aspx.

10) All reports and forms should be submitted to PA SHPO with an accompanying cover letter that includes the submitter’s name, address, and email address for return response. If shape files are not included on the CD with the draft submission please note the reason for their absence in the body of the cover letter.

11) Provide any additional copies in the number and format requested in the report review letter. If additional copies are not requested none need be provided.

12) For all report copies, photographs must adhere to the current National Register Photo Policy, which can be found at www.nps.gov/Nr/publications/bulletins/photopolicy/Photo_Policy_update_2013_05_15.

StandardReportFormat

I. Title Page a. Title of report including project phase, project name, municipality, and county b. Author(s) and organization c. Agency or client d. Report date e. Environmental Review (ER) number

II. Abstract a. Type of project and location b. Area of Potential Effect (APE) size in acres and hectares


www.nps.gov/Nr/publications/bulletins/photopolicy/Photo_Policy_update_2013_05_15

http://www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms-Guidance.aspx


c. d. e.

Survey or evaluation results Project impact Recommendations

III. Table of Contents

IV. List of Figures, Plates, and/or Tables

V. Introduction a. Project Purpose b. Project Administration, organization, sponsors, and agency c. Description of the proposed project, including project constraints if applicable d. Definition and description of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) e. Date(s) of archaeological survey f. Acknowledgements (if desired)

VI. Project Location and General Description a. Physiographic description of the project area b. Present land use patterns (e.g. commercial, agricultural, etc.) c. Description of current conditions with photographs

VII. Background Research and/or Context

VIII. Statewide Pre-Contact Probability Model Comparison and/or Testing

IX. Research and Field Methodology a. Sample design and rationale b. Testing methods and rationale c. Artifact/sample analytical methods and rationale d. Discussion of limits of total project area versus area actually investigated

X. Field Results a. Results of survey b. Assessment of the reliability of the data generated as a result of this project c. Figure(s) that illustrate the location(s) and method(s) of all survey including areas

identified as disturbed. Key symbols and/or shading to a legend. d. Soil profiles labeled with excavation levels, soil horizons, and artifact counts by

level/horizon when applicable. e. For each site:

i. Soil descriptions and geomorphological interpretations



ii.

iii. iv.

v.

Maps, photographs, and drawings. Provide labels that identify artifact provenience, type, and diagnostic or cultural affiliation Total artifact count, count by artifact type, stratum, and feature Summary/description of cultural features when applicable; include plans and profiles Site chronology

XI. Artifact Description and Analysis a. Descriptive artifact inventory (provenience and class) b. Tables summarizing recovered artifacts c. References for artifact identification sources d. e. f. g.

Photographs of diagnostic artifacts Summary of floral and faunal analysis Discussion of artifacts used for construction of site chronology Discussion of final disposition of collected data

XII. Site Interpretation a. Placement of each site within its relevant context

b. c. d.

i. How does each site relate to the archaeological record of the area? Discussion of site function, settlement patterns, and artifact distribution Assessment of each site’s National Register eligibility (if applicable) Discussion of future research potential for each site

XIII. Summary and Recommendations a. Summary of survey results b. Assessment of the survey results as compared to the goal and purpose of the survey c. Discussion of project effects to identified resources

i. Additional investigation necessary to determine National Register eligibility ii. Whether there is an effect to archaeological resources iii. Whether the effect is adverse or, whether there is no adverse effect because

the portion of the archaeological site located within the project’s APE would not contribute to the overall National Register eligibility of the site

iv. Avoidance (including method of avoidance and mapping)

XIV. Works Cited (American Antiquity bibliographic style)

XV. Appendices a. Figures, tables, and photographs that could not be included with their text reference b. Report Summary Form



c. PASS Forms i. Each form should include the assigned trinomial PASS number and the

project ER number ii. PASS forms should be updated to the end of the current phase of work

d. Gift Agreement/Rejection of Gift Form (State Museum Curation Guidelines, 2006) e. Artifact Inventory, by site and provenience f. Specialist reports g. Relevant project communication with PA SHPO h. Phase II scope of work, if applicable i. Qualifications of authors or investigators who are not on file at the PA SHPO

(abbreviated resumes may be used)



GLOSSARY

Words contained in this glossary are indicated throughout the text with as bolded blue words.

Aeolian: Produced or carried by the wind*.

Alluvial (Alluvium): Consisting of sand, gravel, and silt deposited by rivers and streams in a valley bottom**.

Alluvial Fan: A fan-shaped landform composed of sediment that forms where a rapidly flowing mountain stream enters a relatively flat valley. As water slows down, it deposits sediment (alluvium) that gradually builds a fan**.

Archaeological Site (aka Resource): All evidences of past human activity or occupation which can be used to reconstruct the lifeways of past peoples. These include features, artifacts, environmental and all other relevant information, and the contexts in which they occur. Archaeological sites can be pre-contact Native American, as well as historic period Native American and European. For management of archaeological sites in Pennsylvania, the SHPO office defines archaeological sites based on criteria available in Appendix C of these Guidelines.

Archaeological Integrity: The ability of a site, feature, or context to provide information that could support National Register eligibility under Criterion D.

Area of Potential Effect (vertical and horizontal): the area within which an undertaking has the potential to affect archaeological or above-ground historical resources. For archaeological resources, this is typically the limits of ground disturbance both vertical and horizontal.

Backhoe Sounding (Backhoe Trench): a trench excavated through mechanical means (backhoe or excavator) that will be used by geomorphologists or archaeologists to view the natural and cultural stratigraphy within a project area.

Bioturbation: disturbance, or turbation, of soils and/or sediments by biological means. In the context of archaeological sites bioturbation is generally caused by plant roots, animal burrows, and worm and insect disturbances.

Cairn: A small pile of stones made to mark a place or as a memorial*.

Chevaux-de-frise: A portable obstacle, usually a sawhorse, covered with projecting spikes or barbed wire, for military use in closing a passage, breaking in a defensive wall, etc.***.

Colluvial: Consisting of loose earth material that has accumulated at the base of a hill, through the action of gravity, as piles of talus, avalanche debris, and sheets of detritus moved by soil creep, mass wasting or frost action***.



Cultural Affiliation: The known, projected, or hypothesized cultural, ethnic, or tribal group (e.g., Hopewellian, Mississippian, Puebloan, Eskimo, Apache, historic Anglo, etc.) with which archaeological remains may be identified on the basis of careful scientific study.

Cultural Horizon: A level or stratum of sediment containing archaeological material and/or features.

Diagnostic: Dateable based on an artifact attribute such as form, material, period of manufacture, etc.

Ecofacts: Archaeological data which can be used to reconstruct past environments. This ordinarily includes faunal remains, botanical remains, pollen samples, phyloliths, soils data, and other pertinent environmental information.

Feature: A distinct pattern of artifacts, soil disturbance, or buried architectural remains resulting from past human activity on a site. This includes discrete workshop areas, pits, burials, hearths, post molds, trenches, foundations, and any other residues representing the remains of cultural activities.

Feature Phasing: Creation of a chronology of feature construction and/or use based on diagnostic artifact dates.

Flotation: An analytical method that processes soil samples for collection of micro artifact, faunal, and floral remains. Soil samples are saturated to form a slurry. A sample of material floating at the top of the slurry is collected and the remaining slurry is passed through several sieves of increasing size. The contents of each sieve are examined and any collected artifact, floral, and faunal remains are analyzed.

Frac-out Plan (aka Drill Failure Plan): A plan that provides direction for field staff in the circumstance that a Horizontal Directional Drill (HDD) bore fails while in progress, endangering the integrity of surface soils/sediments.

Fragipan: A loamy, brittle subsurface horizon low in porosity and content of organic matter and low or moderate in clay but high in silt or very fine sand. A fragipan appears cemented and restricts roots. When dry, it is hard or very hard and has a higher bulk density than the horizon or horizons above. When moist, it tends to rupture suddenly under pressure rather than to deform slowly****.

Geomorphology (Geomorphological): The study of the characteristics, origin, and development of landforms***.

Ground Balance Capability: the ability of the metal detection machine to ignore metallic minerals present in the soil, either automatically or through user calibration.

Hardpan: A hardened or cemented soil horizon, or layer. The soil material is sandy, loamy, or clayey and is cemented by iron oxide, silica, calcium carbonate, or other substance****.

Lacustrine: Formed at the bottom or along the shore of lakes, as geological strata***.

Magnetometer (Magnetometry): An instrument for detecting the presence of ferrous or magnetic materials***.



Mean Ceramic Date: Date of a site, feature, or context based on the average date of recovered diagnostic ceramics.

Midden: An area of refuse disposal.

Pedology: The study of soils.

Phytoliths: Distinctively shaped silica bodies which may be used to identify the types of plants which were formerly located on archaeological sites. Phytoliths may be analyzed in combination with pollen studies for research on environmental reconstruction.

Relative Dating: The arrangement of artifacts in a typological sequence or seriation***.

Resistivity: Type of survey that measures the resistance of soils and/or sediments to the passage of electrical currents.

Stratified: Consisting of beds or layers of soils/sediments. A “stratified” archaeological site means that layers containing evidence of human occupation are separated from one another vertically, either stacked atop each other or punctuated by sterile sediments.

Terminus Post Quem: The earliest date an artifact, feature, or context could date to.

Terminus Anti Quem: The latest date an artifact, feature, or context could date to.

Trench Box: Metal or wood bracing used to stabilize (shore) open excavation trenches for safety.

References:

* http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english

** http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/misc/glossarya.html

*** http://www.dictionary.com/browse

**** http://nesoil.com/gloss.htm


http://nesoil.com/gloss.htm

http://www.dictionary.com/browse

http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/misc/glossarya.html

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english


Appendix A: Anatomy of an ER Number

Environmental Review (or ER) Numbers are the internal project tracking numbers used by our office. These numbers are assigned to projects at the receipt of the first project submission within a given federal fiscal year (The federal fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the next calendar year). These numbers are unique by project. The number consists of four parts:

1) Federal Fiscal Year of initial project submission. 2) Sequential number assigned within each federal fiscal year. The first project received

each October 1 will be assigned 0001, the second 0002, and so on. 3) County code (see Code Sheet, Appendix B). 4) Alpha Code, unique to each submission. The first submission received for a new ER

number will be the A submission, the second the B submission, and so on.

Example:

2015 – 0110 – 003 – C Submission first 110th submission Allegheny Third Submission received in 2015 received since Oct 1 County w/in ER Number



Appendix B: County Codes and PASS County Abbreviations

County ER Code PASS County Abbreviation Adams 001 AD Allegheny 003 AL Armstrong 005 AR Beaver 007 BV Bedford 009 BD Berks 011 BK Blair 013 BL Bradford 015 BR Bucks 017 BU Butler 019 BT Cambria 021 CB Cameron 023 CM Carbon 025 CR Centre 027 CE Chester 029 CH Clarion 031 CL Clearfield 033 CD Clinton 035 CN Columbia 037 CO Crawford 039 CW Cumberland 041 CU Dauphin 043 DA Delaware 045 DE Elk 047 EL Erie 049 ER Fayette 051 FA Forest 053 FO Franklin 055 FR Fulton 057 FU Greene 059 GR Huntingdon 061 HU Indiana 063 IN Jefferson 065 JE Juniata 067 JU Lackawanna 069 LW Lancaster 071 LA Lawrence 073 LR Lebanon 075 LE Lehigh 077 LH Luzerne 079 LU Lycoming 081 LY McKean 083 MC Mercer 085 ME



Mifflin 087 MI Monroe 089 MR Montgomery 091 MG Montour 093 MO Northampton 095 NM Northumberland 097 NB Perry 099 PE Philadelphia 101 PH Pike 103 PI Potter 105 PO Schuylkill 107 SC Snyder 109 SN Somerset 111 SO Sullivan 113 SU Susquehanna 115 SQ Tioga 117 TI Union 119 UN Venango 121 VE Warren 123 WA Washington 125 WH Wayne 127 WY Westmoreland 129 WM Wyoming 131 WO York 133 YO Multiple County 042



Appendix C: PASS Numbers and Site Identification Criteria

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) records all cultural resources in our CRGIS (Cultural Resources Geographic Information System). Each type of resource has different recording needs, so our office has developed a series of forms as well as some general guidance for recording resources. Please visit the Recording Resources section of our website to access these forms and guidance.

RecordingArchaeologicalsitesinThePennsylvaniaArchaeologicalSiteSurveyfiles(PASS)

PASS numbers are assigned to all archaeological sites meeting the Site Identification Criteria (see below), regardless of whether the site is pre- or post- contact or part of a larger resource. Most sites should be recorded on the standard PASS Forms.

WhatDoesaPASSSiteNumberLookLike?

The format of these numbers follows the Smithsonian Trinomial System. This system, which was developed by the Smithsonian Institution in the 1930’s and 1940’s is now used in some variation by most of the 50 states. The numbers are coded in three parts:

36 AL 0001 Pennsylvania’s County Sequential Number Unique Code within County Identifier

In Pennsylvania, Smithsonian Trinomial PASS numbers are only issued by the SHPO.

HowtoRecordOtherTypesofResources

Industrial resources frequently have both above and below ground components still extant. We have a form for recording these resources that combines the appropriate portions of the PASS forms and the Historic Resource Forms. All industrial forms obtain a PASS number, and sometimes a six-digit historic resource Key number is also assigned. Additional information on the appropriate use of the Industrial Resource Form can be found within the Site Identification Criteria.

Cemeteries also have unique recording needs and a series of forms are available for these, as well. Cemetery numbers include the county designation and a sequence number (e.g. CEM AD0001).

There are two situations that we refer to as Isolated Finds (or non-site collections), for which we also have a specialized form. One is the location of a single DIAGNOSTIC pre-contact artifact, whose location you may wish to note in case other materials are subsequently found in the area. This also can be use when helping a collector record finds when they did not collect all of the artifacts.



The second circumstance involves artifacts collected as part of a survey that do not meet the Site Identification Criteria, but are still submitted for curation at the State Museum of Pennsylvania. In accordance with the State Museum Curation Guidelines, these artifacts must also have an identifying number that will tie them back to the survey. Therefore, the SHPO, in cooperation with the State Museum issues Isolated Find/Non-Site numbers for these artifacts. Isolated find/non-site numbers are similar to PASS numbers, but the final sequence will begin with “/”.

ObtainingNumbersfromtheSHPO

To obtain any of these numbers, complete the appropriate form and submit an electronic copy of the form to the SHPO by emailing the form as an attachment to the CRGIS at [email protected]. A complete hard copy of the form, including the number in the appropriate headers, should also be mailed to the SHPO office to the attention of the CRGIS Staff after the number has been assigned. The ER Number should also be included on the hard copy form if applicable. Hard copy forms are curated in the Resource File within the SHPO Archive.

The CRGIS Staff has two weeks from receipt of request to issue a number.


mailto:[email protected]


AppendixD:PennsylvaniaArchaeologicalSiteSurveyFilesSiteIdentificationCriteria

The following represent Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS) site identification criteria and standards developed by the Section of Archaeology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Office (PA SHPO), Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

These criteria do not represent the diversity of possible site types but are intended to serve as minimum guidelines for assessing if a collection represents a site. Any assemblage meeting these criteria should be recorded as a site using the current PASS forms or online tools. PA SHPO archaeology staff can define sites at their discretion based on contextual circumstances.

According to guidance from the National Register of Historic Places, “A site is the location of a significant event, a pre-contact or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the values of any existing structure.” (NR Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, 1997:5).

The National Register refers to “pre- and post-contact” archaeological sites, offering a basic temporal and cultural division for site types in North America. The PA SHPO uses “historic” in place of “post-contact”.

Not all materials collected in the field will meet the criteria outlined below. The Isolated Find or Non-Site Collection form is used to record this material under two specific circumstances:

to record isolated diagnostic pre-contact artifacts

to record project assemblages that will be submitted to the State Museum for curation, but do not meet any of the site criteria.

These forms are submitted to the PA SHPO for review and assignment of a general county catalog number by The State Museum, Section of Archaeology. That numeric designation must be used in labeling the assemblage.

Drawing Boundaries

Site numbers are meant to designate locations of past human activity, not necessarily patterns of survey or collection. During Phase I, site boundary definition should heavily consider landform and topography. Larger site areas, including multiple artifact concentrations more than 50 feet apart, should be grouped appropriately within the same landform. Should additional investigation at the Phase II level show that multiple sites exist, the site can be split and a second site trinomial can be assigned.



For projects limited to a narrow transect through a portion of a site (e.g. pipeline or sewer line rights-of-way or highway sliver-takes) the extent of the site within the right-of-way should be defined. The likely extent of the site beyond the right-of-way should be estimated based on topographic or other features, such as landforms and waterways. For historic sites, associated standing structures and other historic features should be included within the site boundary.

Please refer to the PA SHPO’s Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations for more information about site identification and boundary definition for historic and pre-contact sites.

Pre‐ContactSites

MinimumStandards

1. Two or more culturally modified objects (points, flakes, stone tools, pottery sherds, etc.), excluding fire-cracked rock (FCR), represent a site:

a. When found within a 50 ft (15 m) diameter area when surface collecting a plowed field, or

b. When recovered from an individual or adjacent shovel tests/units spaced no more than 50 ft (15 m) apart.

2. The presence of any subsurface culturally derived feature requires designation of the locality as a site.

3. A rock shelter containing at least one pre-contact artifact (excluding FCR) is a site.

4. Reminder: Isolated diagnostic pre-contact artifacts (points or ceramics), regardless of context, should be fully recorded on the Isolated Find form. These will not be assigned official PASS site numbers but will be given isolated find numbers that can be used for curation, and they will remain on file as important information concerning pre-contact land use.

HistoricSites

For the Pennsylvania Archaeological Site Survey (PASS), record all of the following as historic archaeological sites if they are 50 or more years of age. In keeping with this standard, diagnostic artifacts used to assess a find’s status as an archaeological site should be 50 years old or older. Diagnostic is defined as securely datable based on period of manufacture, decoration, and/or function.

For historic sites, in addition to recovered artifacts and identified features, documentary research and the evaluation of visible natural or cultural landscape features are often necessary to arrive at a site boundary. Documentary sources such as historic and modern aerial photographs, historic maps, and deed information must be used in this endeavor. For many types of historic sites,



especially residential sites and sites in urban areas, site boundaries may coincide with legal property boundaries.

Historic site types are diverse, complicated to define, and exist within a variety of contexts. These criteria serve as minimum standards for the recordation of historic sites, but they cannot encompass all possible scenarios. Certain site types are likely to exhibit a lower artifact density than is prescribed in the minimum standards. Examples include, but are not limited to, pre-19th century sites, battlefields, military encampments, and made-land settings.

MinimumStandards

1. Any building foundation, ruin, or structural feature—whether discovered above or below the surface—should be recorded as a site.

Standing structures should be recorded as a historic building using the HRSF. If the property’s archaeological potential has not been investigated, then it is not necessary to also complete a PASS form.

2. Any historic structure, foundation, ruin, or structural feature AND any number of associated historic artifacts found within 100 ft (30 m) of the feature constitute a site. If the artifact scatter extends beyond 100 ft, the site’s boundary should be extended to reflect the occupation or activity represented by the site.

In urban settings or situations where there is historic parcel data, the site’s boundaries should be defined by historic land parcels.

3. Artifact concentrations should be recorded as sites in the following circumstances. Generally speaking, the recovered assemblage must contain artifacts from at least two functional classes and include three securely diagnostic artifacts to constitute a site. If all artifacts come from the same functional class (as in a bottle dump) there must be five securely diagnostic artifacts to define a site.

Currently unplowed contexts (including urban sites): o A minimum of 30 artifacts recovered from adjacent or non-adjacent shovel

tests/units within a half-acre or smaller area constitute a site. Currently plowed contexts:

o If your resource shows on a historic map, a minimum of 30 artifacts recovered from a one-acre or smaller area is a site.

o In the absence of map evidence, site definition requires the presence of 50 artifacts within a one-acre or smaller area.



Appendix E: Policy on Human Remains

PENNSYLVANIA HISTORICAL AND MUSEUM COMMISSION PENNSYLVANIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO)

Policy on the Treatment of Human Remains Adopted March 10, 1993

The SHPO developed this policy to serve as a guide for persons conducting agency programs for SHPO, persons excavating for any reason on Commonwealth land, and persons excavating under a permit authorized by a state agency, other than SHPO, who discover human remains or a burial site. It serves to prevent the destruction of unmarked burials, encourage respectful treatment of all human remains, and the role of Native American groups, in compliance with NAGPRA. The policy further attempts to balance the scientific and research value of skeletal material and associated funeral objects.

This policy offers more guidance in two specific areas:

1) Deals with burial sites discovered during CRM projects, archaeological field investigations, grant funded projects, and all earth moving projects on state land. The discovery of human remains should trigger a process that encourages careful and dignified treatment and mandates the notification of appropriate parties. The issue of human remains and burial sites is not directly addressed in NAGPRA, however, the PA policy hopes to follow this legislation as closely as possible.

2) The treatment of existing collections of skeletal material, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony.

Definitions For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions should apply:

Burial site: any natural or prepared physical location below, on, or above the surface of the earth into which, as part of a death rite or ceremony of a culture, human remains have been deposited whether marked or unmarked.

Policy I – Discovery of Human Remains This policy is activated when the discovery of human remains falls within one of three categories:

1) When human remains are uncovered, disturbed, or exposed in the course of archaeological field investigations undertaken during Commonwealth funded, permitted, or assisted projects.

2) When human remains are inadvertently discovered during earth moving activity on Commonwealth lands.



3) When human remains re discovered during state permitted activities occurring off Commonwealth land, when the permit is granted by any agency of the state government, except the SHPO.

This policy outlines the procedures to be followed if the discovery of human remains fall within category 1 or 2. It is further designed to give guidance to discoveries that fall within category 3. It will be implemented in part through SHPO archaeological guidelines, through its Grants Program, through its contract documents, and through archaeological permits granted for archaeological investigations on state lands.

1. In field situations, human remains may be encountered under two sets of circumstances – (1) during a planned archaeological investigation, or (2) during routine ground disturbance from excavations and construction, known as unexpected discovery.

Archaeological Investigations (Category 1) Any person doing archaeological excavations through permits or grants through the SHPO must have a contingency plan for the treatment of human remains or a burial site as part of their research proposal. This plan should identify expected lineal descendants or culturally affiliated groups

When human remains are encountered in the manner they were anticipated, the treatment plan should be activated.

If, during the course of investigation, it appears that human remains are encountered that were unanticipated, then work at the site should stop. The coroner and the SHPO should be notified of the find.

Unexpected Discoveries (Category 2 required action, Category 3 guidance) Any person while undertaking earth moving activities occurring off Commonwealth land who becomes aware that human remains or a burial site are being disturbed shall cease all activity in the area of the site. If it appears that the remains may be of a historic or prehistoric nature, the SHPO should be notified of the find.

2. Whether human remains are encountered through archaeological investigation or through inadvertent discovery, it is the intention of this policy to allow an opportunity for consultation with groups that may be culturally affiliated with or may be lineal descendants of the deceased. This will give all parties involved an opportunity to develop a plan for the remains.

Archaeological Investigation (Category 1) The treatment plan developed as part of the scope of work should be implemented.

Unexpected Discovery (Category 2 and 3) The Commission has one week to notify potential lineal descendants or culturally affiliated groups.



3. Based on the above notification and following consultation, the SHPO will consider the concerns and recommendations of all parties who are able to establish lineal descent or cultural affiliation with the individual(s) associated with the burial site.

4. Once consultation is completed, the SHPO will develop and direct a final treatment plan. This should be completed within fifteen days. The plan may recommend any of a number of treatment plans. These include:

Leaving the human remains in situ if the burial will not be disturbed and can be protected in this manner

Removal and immediate reburial by the appropriate culturally affiliated group or direct lineal descendant

Removal of the human remains and examination undertaken by a qualified osteologist to gather basic information

Removal and examination of the remains

5. Funerary objects and grave goods directly associated with unmarked human remains should be treated in the same manner as human remains.



Appendix F: UPDATED and NEW Forms

These forms are attached for reference only. To download copies of pre-formatted, fillable forms, please visit the Forms and Guidance page on our website at: www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms-Guidance.

Updated and new forms included in this report:

SHPO Pre-contact Model Testing Methodology Form (PMTM)

Isolated Find/Non-Site Collection Form


www.phmc.pa.gov/Preservation/About/Pages/Forms-Guidance


Appendix G: CRGIS Geospatial Submission Standards

Formats

Preferred: Esri Shapefile consisting of at least .dbf, .shp, .shx

Accepted: GoogleEarth KML; Esri Geodatabase

To use any other format, please contact the CRGIS staff in advance.

FileOrganizationbyResourceType

SurveyArea

Submit survey areas for above and below ground projects in a single file if they are covered in the same report. This should include the areas where archaeological and historical resources were considered, which might not be equivalent to the project corridor. If a survey APE consists of dis-contiguous areas, merge them into a single feature. If the project contains above and below ground surveys, then this file should only contain two features. For projects with multiple addenda, submit a shapefile that is identical to the APE in that particular report. All survey areas must be represented by polygons.

Required Attributes:

Field Name Type Characters Content

ERNO Text 20 YYYY-NNNN-NNN-A Fill in the appropriate year, sequence, county, and alpha code for that report

SURVEY_TYP Text 20 Above ground; Below ground; Both

AboveGroundResources

Submit all above ground resources in a single file. Each resource should be a single feature and must be represented by a polygon



KEYNO Text 6 NNNNNN Enter the 6-digit key number



BelowGroundResources

Submit all archaeological sites and isolated finds in a single file. Each resource should be a single feature and must be represented by a polygon. Please do not send find locations for non-site collections.



SITENO Text 8 36AANNNN Fill in appropriate 2-character county code and 4-digit site number

or 36AA/NNN Fill in appropriate 2-character county code and 3-digit isolated find number

OtherData Types

If you would like to send us additional data, such as shovel test locations, survey coverage polygons, or other features noted during survey, please coordinate with CRGIS staff.

For more information, please contact the CRGIS staff:

Noel Strattan, Supervisor (717) 214-6572 or [email protected]

Elizabeth Shultz, Above Ground GIS Specialist (717) 346-9568 or [email protected]

Hannah Harvey, Below Ground GIS Specialist (717) 346-0616 or [email protected]



